The public life of George Grenville

Citation preview

THE PUBLIC LIFE OF GEORGE GRENVILLE

A Dissertation Presented to The Faculty of the Graduate School The University of Southern California

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy

by Elwyn H. Odell September 22, 1942

UMI Number: DP28662

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Dissertation Pebi shing

UMI DP28662 Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 - 1346

T h is d is s e rta tio n , w r it t e n by ......... ELra...lQ?E...ODEy,.............. u n d e r the g u id a n c e o f /z.A.® F a c u lt y C o m m itte e on S tudies, a n d a p p r o v e d by a l l its m em bers, has been presen ted to a n d accep ted by the C o u n c il on G ra d u a te S tu d y a n d R e search, in p a r t i a l f u l ­ f i l l m e n t o f re q u ire m e n ts f o r the degree o f P H IL O S O P H Y

DOCTOR

T>ean

Secretary Date

S&ptemb©r-^-19-42

Committee on Studies

Chairman

Donald Rowland FrancisBowman

PREFACE v

Eighteenth century England was a century of curious con­ trasts • Many of the elements of contemporary English politi­ cal life were mingled with elements of monarchical absolutism. The first forty years saw the feeble beginnings of parliamentary ascendancy and the origin, of an official position that in some ways may be compared to the office of prime minister to­ day— a strong, responsible leadership whose authority tended to rest more upon parliamentary support than upon royal favor. The last forty years of the century, however, saw a re­ surgence of royal prerogative and absolutism.

George III

took seriously the admonition of his mother when she said, ’’George, be a King.”

He was the last English king to attempt

to exercise absolute authority with any degree of success. George Grenville was prime minister under George III from 1763-65.

Like George III, he failed to appreciate no

constitutional changes.that were taking place, and with the King, supported public policies that were unfortunate both for the nation and the empire. statesman.

Grenville was not a great

He was a conscientious, tireless prime minister,

but lacked many of the important qualifications that make

iii for statesmanship.

He might well have been an able parlia­

mentarian as Speaker of the House of Commons, where he so much desired to be.

But he did not possess the ingenuity

and imagination necessary to a man who was the maker of public policy. Most of the sources used in this study are to be found in the Huntington Library, San Marino, California.

The

Library of the University of Washington also offered impor­ tant material.

The author wishes to acknowledge the kind

assistance of the staff members of these libraries. The author wishes to acknowledge also the encouragement and inspiration of his former Committee Chairman, the late Gilbert G. Benjamin, and the other members of the Committee, Professors T. Walter Wallbank (Chairman), Donald W. Howland, Francis J. Bowman, Carlton C. Rodee and J. Eugene Harley. E. H. 0. September, 1942 Los Angeles, California

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER

PAGE

PREFACE........ ................... ..................... ii I.

A BACKGROUND OF BRITISH GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS IN THE 18TH CENTURY......... Position of the Tory Party

1 .....

2

Growth of Party Government.................. *....3 The King1s Power of Appointment and Dismissal

5

Increasing Power of the House of Commons......... 9 The Septennial Act..............................10 The Influence of Sir Robert Walpole............. 10 Development of Strong Party Government....*..... 14 The Growth of Interest in Politics Among the Electorate................. •••••••••••.......

17

The "Prime Minister" and the Relative Importance of Cabinet Offices

......

.20

The Absence of Cabinet Unity and Ministerial Inter-dependence.

...........

Summary.........

24 26

II.. THE EARLY POLITICAL CAREER OF GEORGE GRENVILLE.... .29 Education

.....

Association with Lord Cobham

29 30

Enters Parliament for Buckingham................ 31 Mistreatment by Henry Pelham and William Pitt....34

V CHAPTER

PAGE Personal and Political Differences of Grenville and his brother, Richard*.•..••••.••••••37 The Duke of Newcastle as First Minister...... ..*.38 Grenville, Treasurer of the Navy

.... 41

Grenville, Pitt and Temple dismissed by Newcastle *••••••.•••••••••••••••......

47

Lord Bute and Leicester House...... ............. 47 Character of Grenville. •••••.•••••••............. 50 Beginning of the French and IndianWar............ 55 Negotiations"with Pitt and Fox for a new Government ••••••••.....

••.••••.57

Pitt, Secretary of State.................

58

Grenville again Treasurer of the Navy........... .61 The Pitt-Devonshire Administration............ ...61 The Trial of Admiral Byng.

....

62

The Pitt-Newcastle Administration......... .......66 Anglo-Prussian Treaty, January , 1756............. 66

III.

Peace Negotiations.

...................

.68

Conclusion.........

••

70

THE ACCESSION OF -GEORGE III.....

.74

The Influence of the Princess Dowager upon George III......

75

The Influence of Lord Bute.........

76

The Nature of the English Monarchy............... 78

CHAPTER

PAGE The King»s Policy of "Divide and Rule"....*..... .80 The Reactionary Character of the Reign of George III...............

IV.

85

GRENVILLE UNDER GEORGE III— FROM ACCESSION TO PRIME MINISTER............. Lord Bute, Secretary of State.

87 ...........

•87

The General Election•*••••••..... •••••.••••••••••87 The Movement Against Pitt— Peace Negotiations.....88 The Franco-Spanish "Family Compact"••••••..••••••.89 Grenville, Leader in the House of Commons.........95 Popularity of Pitt.......

......96

Spain Declares War on England, December, 1761.....99 Resignation of the Duke of Newcastle......... ...100 Lord Bute, First Minister................... ....101 Grenville, Secretary of State..........

102

Bute*s Efforts for Peace........... ..’...........105 The Duke of Bedford and Peace Negotiations.......105 Henry Fox, Leader in the House of Commons....... 108 Grenville, First Lord of the Admiralty.’..'....... 113 Grenville1s Opposition to the Peace........ The Peace of Paris.^ ....

.114 115

The Character and Decline of Bute............... 119 Conclusion

............. •••••.......122

CHAPTER V.

PAG!

PRELIMINARIES TO THE GRENVILLE ADMINISTRATION. ......126 Grenville the Choice of Bute for First Minister.*127 Plans for the New Government

.....

128

Composition of the Grenville Ministry............ 135 VI.

THE WILKES AFFAIR.......

139

Publication of "No. 45” of the North Briton......139 Lord Temple’s support of Wilkes....... .*........141 The Arrest of Wilkes on a General Warrant....... 143 The Trial of Wilkes before Parliament

......147

Riots over the Burning of the ”No. 45”..... .....151 Conviction and Outlawry of Wilkes.

^

..154

Unfortunate Results of the Wilkes Affair.........155 VII.

EARLY NEGOTIATIONS AGAINST THE GRENVILLE 160

GOVERNMENT................

Grenville’s former Relation to the Whig Party....160 Grenville a ”Dupe” of the King and Lord Bute Negotiations with Pitt

.....

161 .....164

Death of Lord Egremont, Secretary of State.

164

The King’s Plans for calling in Pitt............ 165 Failure of Negotiations with Pitt....... Cabinet Changes after the Pitt Negotiation

..... 168 .175

The Duke of Bedford, Lord President of the Council. ...••••..... •••••........ The "Retirement” of Lord Bute. Conclusion •••••....

175 ....

178 182

viii CHAPTER VIII.

PACE

GRENVILLE ’S FOREIGN AND FINANCIAL POLICIES

....184

Background, of England’s Foreign Policy..........184 Grenville’s Policy of ^Economy and Reform”......186 Relations with France........

.188

France’s dilatoriness in carrying out the Peace Provisions....... •••••••••••••••..188 Protracted Negotiations with France.....

189

The Seizure of Turk’s Island by a French Squadron.

.199

Final Settlement of the Peace Provisions.....203 The Stamp A

c

t

•••••••••....... 204

England’s Need for Revenue.........../......205 Reforms" in the Trade Laws

....... ...206

Prevalence of Smuggling in the Colonies

.208

Grenville’s Plan to Protect America.••••••••.211 ........ 214

Passage of the Stamp Act Colonial Reaction to the Stamp Act. Conclusion.

......

.....216 ...218

Grenville’s Financial Policy at Home••••••••••••221 Need for Financial Reform.-;.........

..222

Decline in Government Appropriations.........226 Purchase of the Isle of Man..•••••••••.••••..228 IX.

THE REGENCY BILL

....

The King’s Illness.••...... ......

229 ...229

ix CHAPTER

PAGE Preparations for a Regency*.........

...230

Grenville’s Disagreement with the King......... .239 Meaning of the words ’’Royal Family”..............240 Exclusion of the King’s mother from becoming Reg en t

........

241

Unfortunate Consequence of the Regency Bill......242 Lord Bute’s Relation to the Regency Bill...... ..243 Passage of the Regency Bill... X.

.... 248

THE FALL OF THE GRENVILLE ADMINISTRATION: CHARACTER OF-HIS MINISTERS

.....

.251

Character of English Political Life In the 18th C e n t u r y

.251

Personal Ambition of Grenville’s Subordinates....256 Grenville’s Indifference toward his Ministers....259 Final Negotiations Against the Grenville Government

....

.265

Negotiations with Pitt and their Failure......270 Reconciliation of Grenville and Temple..

270

Grenville’s Demands for Continuing in Office..271 Reconciliation of Grenville and Pitt

....276

Lord Temple vetoes Pitt’s talcing Office...... 279 Dismissal of Grenville.

.... ..‘........281

Grenville’s last Conversation with the King...281

CHAPTER

PAGE

BIBLIOGRAPHY. .........

.391

APPENDIX ,I............. ............. .

iv

APPENDIX II..... APPENDIX III. .... ... APPENDIX IV.......

............. .i

............

.vi ..viii

CHAPTER I A BACKGROUND OF BRITISH GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS IN THE 18TH CENTURY

With the coining of the Hanoverian dynasty to Britain in 1714, there began a new era in British government and politics. The factors which had brought about the change were not new, but by the time George I came to the throne these factors were more readily discernible, and were already shaping the elements which were to characterize the great parliamentary changes of the 18th century. By the Act of Settlement of 1701, Sophia of Hanover, a granddaughter of James I, was declared the heir to the Eng­ lish throne.

But Sophia died in 1713, and her son, George

Lewis, elector of Hanover, became King of England in 1714. The accession of George I and its consequences were among the most important factors in the development of the ^trends of 18th century parliamentary government. first place, the title to the crown was disputed.

In the To the

Tories, James III was the lawful heir to the throne, and their sentiments in this regard chould hardly help but

reduce the prestige formerly held by the crown.^

Even had

the title been undisputed, George I could not well have fitted into the conception of what the English people thought their king should be.

He could not speak the English language, and

he cared little for the customary pomp and ceremony of the English court.

There was little to compensate for his vul­

garity and immorality.

"Uo veneer of elegance and culture

made the vices of the German kings respectable.1,2 The Tory party which traditionally had supported the theory of divine right, became the apostles of the constitu­ tion, and they looked "upon the reigning Sovereign as the head of their opponents," and made "it a main object of their policy to abridge his p o w e r . To the English people this Tory opposition was a manifestation of the latterfs Jacobitism, although the Tories openly disclaimed any connection with the Pretender.

But, at least, it was an anomalous

situ­

ation to find the Tory party the defenders of the people against the royal prerogative.4

Lecky, William E., History of England in the Eighteenth Century, vol. i, p. 271. g Blauvelt, Mary T., Development of Cabinet Government. p. 144. 3 Lecky, o&. cit.. vol. i, p. 273. 4 "The Tories have been so long obliged to talk in the

The growth of political parties was another factor which led to the decline in the prestige and power of the sovereign* Political parties were not a new element in English political life, but during this period the king’s ministers were chosen more and more from a single party, a procedure which at the same time tended to increase cabinet power and responsibility.-** The trend in this direction began even before George I. was especially true during the reign of Queen Anne.

This

Although

it had been her aim to draw able men into her service from both parties, she finally was forced to place her government entirely in the hand of the Whigs.

When Godolphin was over­

thrown, Anne tried to form a coalition ministry.

But the

Whigs refused to join, and the government became a predomi­ nantly Tory government.

Here again the Queen attempted to

bring balance into the government by introducing Whigs into the ministry.

”Her plan was not to suffer the Tory interest

to grow too strong, but to keep such a number of Whigs still

republican style that they seem to have made converts of them­ selves by their hypocrisy, and to have embraced the sentiments as well as the language of their adversaries.” (Hume, David, Essay on Parties, in Lecky, op. cit.. vol. i, p. 274, n.) 11The formation of a ministry, or homogeneous body of ruling statesmen of the same politics, deliberating in common, and in which each member is responsible to the others, has been justly described by Lord Macauley as one of the most momentous and least noticed consequences of the Revolution.” (Lecky, op. cit., vol. i, p. 278.)

in office as should he a constant check upon her ministers. The crisis in the ministry as a result of this policy was cut short by the Queen* s death. For a brief period at the beginning of the reign of George I there was some doubt as to whether he would give full author ity to the Whigs, or try to retain some measure of power by giving some offices to the Tories, but Townshend and Cowper "pressed upon the King the impossibility of distributing his favours equally between the parties," and when the first cabi­ net was completed, only one Tory, Nottingham, remained, and he had already been aligned with the Whigs before the end of Queen Anne* s reign.

It was in the appointment of the first

cabinet that the Whigs tried to impress the King with the Jacobite character of the Tory party.

The Whigs insisted

that, the leaders of the Tory party had in the last reign been deeply implicated in Jacobite intrigues; that it was difficult or impossible to say how far Jacobitism had spread among them; that a division of offices would be sure to create jealousy and disloyalty in the weaker party, and to enfeeble, in a period of great danger, the policy of the government.2

^ Sheridan*s Life of Swift. pp. 124-25, in Lecky, on. cit., p. 280. * Lecky, op. cit.. vol. i, p. 282. Lecky maintains that an important reason for the hostility of the Tories toward the new King and their sympathy for the Stuarts was "simply due to a fear that the new Government would not

5 Miether or not the Tories were predominantly attached to the Pretender at the beginning of the Hanoverian dynasty, their exclusion from government made them look to the Stuarts for their salvation.

The Whigs in any case held monopoly on the

confidence of the King. Under these circumstances the King could hardly call him­ self the sovereign.

He was no longer the sole determiner of

government policy; the power of appointment and dismissal was not entirely his own; he was no longer independent of his ministers, but he governed "only through a political body which, in its complete union and in its command of the major­ ity in Parliament, was usually able, by the threat of joint resignation, which would make government impossible, to dic­ tate its own terms. At this point it might be well to consider some of the other trends which indicate the rising power of parliament and foreshadow the development of cabinet government. After George I became King, but while he was still on the Continent, he requested Lord Townshend to form a govera-

recognize the legitimate claims of the party to a fair share of political power," and that since the Tory party represented the clergy and the landed gentry, the latter "were bitterly exasperated by its proscription." ^ Lecky, op. cit.. vol. i, p. 283.

6 ment, giving him power to choose the ministers he saw fit. ■ With these powers Townshend might have been regarded as first minister, although he was not the leader of his party.

His

official title was that of Secretary of State, as was that of his colleague, Stanhope.

In 1717 Townshend disagreed with the

King over, the latter1s Continental policy with regard to the payment of the troops of Saxe-Gotha.

As a result, Townshend

was dismissed, and Robert Walpole, who was regarded as "Townshendfs man," resigned along with others of the ministers. The significance of these dismissals and resignations lies In the fact that they raised several fundamental ques­ tions as to the nature of cabinet government.

Although dis­

missals of this kind were not uncommon before the time of George I, nevertheless, the changing character of cabinet government brought this prerogative of the Crown into ques­ tion.

Blauvelt puts the following questions:

Are the ministers personal servants of the Crown, to be appointed by the sovereign at his pleasure, consider­ ing neither the voice of the nation, nor the personal fitness of the candidate, when such considerations inter­ fere with his pleasure? Is it the duty of the loyal subject to take office when commanded to do so, regard less of his ability to perform the duties of the office? And if the sovereign may appoint at pleasure, may he also dismiss at pleasure? dismissing a minister who has been guilty of no misdemeanor, and who has not lost the favor of Parliament or the nation? Finally, should the cabinet be a -unit?...the very raising of the questions indicated that other solutions were beginning to be

thought possible With the death of Stanhope in 1721— he had succeeded Townshend as first minister— and the dismissal of Sunderland because of his dealings in the South Sea Company, the ministry which had relied mainly on royal favor came to an end, and the ministry of Robert Walpole, which placed government defi­ nitely in the House of Commons, began. When George II became King in 1727, he, like his father, attempted to appoint his own ministers, but with less success. Not only was he unable to replace Robert Walpole who for years had been his enemy, but he was not even allowed to appoint the subordinate officials.

Newcastle, Townshend, and Horace Wal­

pole all took office; these the King had labeled an "imperti­ nent fool," a "choleric blockhead," and a "scoundrel, fool and dirty buffoon," respectively. In 1743 Lord Wilmington (Sir Spencer Compton), who had been First Lord of the Treasury, died, leaving Henry Pelham and Lord Bath the chief contenders for the position of first minister.

Pelham was a protege of Walpolefs.

The latter

recommended Pelham to the King and he was appointed, although the Kingfs personal preference was for Lord Bath.

Later, when

Pelham had consolidated his strength in Parliament, he "made

1 Blauvelt, o&. cit.. p. 154.

terms with the leaders of the opposition, and the so-called Broad Bottom administration was formed, several of whose mem­ bers were personally offensive to the King,”1 thus further weakening the King,s control over his ministers. Again in 1746 George II tried to get control of the cabi­ net and failed.

On this occasion the Pelham brothers,2

who

were the chief ministers of the crown, deliberately initiated the crisis*

Although they were the leaders of the government,

they realized that they held their position only because the King needed their Parliamentary prestige, and that as soon as the King was no longer dependent upon their influence he would get rid of them*

So they decided to test their position by

demanding an office for William Pitt. refused, and the Pelhams resigned*

The appointment was So many other ministers

resigned with them that ”the King finally shut himself up in his closet, and refused to receive any more insignia of office* He directed Lord Granville (Carteret) to form an administra­ tion, but that gentleman failed because he did not have a ma­ jority in both Houses of Parliament, and because he could get no one of importance to take office*

Consequently the Pelhams

1 Blauvelt, op. cit** p* 165. ^ Henry Pelham and the Duke of Newcastle were brothers.

were returned to power. Other instances in which George II tried to control the appointment and dismissal of his ministers could he cited. But these will suffice to illustrate the growing dependence of the King upon his ministers and the decline of the royal prerogative. Another of the significant developments of the early 18th century in British politics was the ascendance of the House of Commons over the Lords.

It had been the custom for some

time to appoint some of the leading ministers from the lower house, because, since the House of Commons was the House whose membership changed much more often than that of the Lords, it was natural that the House of Commons should be more represen­ tative of the sentiments of the electorate.

And it thus fol­

lowed that men should be chosen from the lower House who re­ flected perhaps more accurately changes in public opinion. This trend was enhanced also by the increased political

^ "Never before had the sovereign considered the resig­ nation of ministers whom he hated, and whose policy he dis­ approved, a calamity. Never before had the subordinate members of an administration resigned unanimously with their chief... And the quietness with which it was all done shows how great the progress had been. The Pelhams resigned because the King would not listen to them. There was no violent uproar. Suc­ cessors were appointed, and still no great excitement. But almost immediately these successors discovered that they were without the means of carrying on the government. So they quietly resigned." (Blauvelt. o p . cit.. p. 166,67.)

10 activity of the people and the effect of public opinion upon Parliament.

It was almost necessary that strong leadership

should be present in the House of Commons in order to control the mob spirit which was often expressed in the politics of the day.

And yet it was quite often the case that the Commons

was unable to retain strong leaders because most of the able men looked forward to a peerage.

It was not until the time

of Robert Walpole that a strong Commons leader refused a peer­ age in order to stay in the lower House. The passage of the Septennial Act in 1717 changed the length of Parliaments from three to seven years.

The Tories

opposed the bill and maintained that its effect ftwould be to acknowledge that the King could not trust his people.^

But

the Act was passed and it served to increase the dignity of the Commons and give Tfstrength and stability to its action.n It made of the Commons a school of statesmanship, where men of ability had opportunities to develop their capacities of leadership without having to spend a great deal of time and energy in electioneering.

And as the prestige of the Commons

came into its own, men of ability were not so likely to look to the House of Lords as the primary place of service. In any discussion of the factors contributing to the

Blauvelt, op. cit.« p. 186.

11 development of parliamentary government the influence of Sir Robert Walpole cannot he omitted. tance of the to

He was aware of the impor­

Septennial Act in giving strength and prestige

the lower House. He realized also

that the rapidly grow­

ing government expenditures contributed to the importance of the House of Commons.^-

And since Walpolefs great abilities

lay largely in financial matters, he was able to take advan­ tage of the ”cry for economy,”

One source says,

He was the best minister who knew best how to economize. The Excise Bill, the Land Tax, the public debt, the Sink­ ing Fund, the encouragement of trade— these were the matters that were attracting attention. And these could be dealt with to advantage only in the House of Commons.2 Hot only

was the

House of Commonsincreasing its power,

but the House of Lords was at the same time losing ground. Some of the Lords themselves realized that the House where ability and real service counted most was the Commons.

When

Hervey accepted a peerage, his father, Lord Bristol, wrote to him: As I am stranger to the many secret motives which must have influenced your choice suddenly to exchange the im­ portant House you was a member of for so insignificant a one as your friends and you have endeavored to make that

^ In 1699 Davenant estimated that 2,300,000 pounds ”was as much taxation as the country could bear.” By 1743, the year following Walpolefs resignation, the estimates were about 10,000,000 pounds. p

Blauvelt. op. cit.. p. 188.

12 you are to be translated to, I will not take it upon me to decide whether it was upon the whole well judged or not.3And again in the words of Pulteney (Lord Bath), "When I have turned out Sir Robert Walpole I will retire into that House of invalids, the House of Peers.”2 ” There were at least three other factors which helped to determine the nature of the House of Commons in this period* The first was the necessity for strong leadership in the Com­ mons; the second was the necessity that the leader of the Commons should be granted ample powers; and the third was the necessity that the leader of the Commons should have a strong following in the House.

Perhaps some explanation is required.

Regarding the first factor mentioned, the necessity for strong leadership in the House of Commons, after the death of Henry Pelham in 1754 there wasa period of unrest and a lack of effective organization.

The reason for it was that the

first minister at that time was the Duke of Newcastle, a peer. Newcastle tried to keep the reins of power in his own hands, not realizing that a first minister who isnot a member of the House of Commons could not

successfully do so.

”Hemust

^ Hervey1s Memoirs, vol. i, p. 245, in Blauvelt, op. cit.. p. 189. 2 Blauvelt, op. cit.. p. 190.

UB share his office with the leader of that House. sity Newcastle did not understand. he did not.

This neces­

Nor is it surprising that

It had only just become a necessity.

To illustrate the second factor, that the leader of the Commons should be granted ample power, reference can be made again to the situation described above.

Newcastle was con­

scious of the need for strong leadership in the Commons, but he had considerable difficulty finding anyone who was willing to share the power with him.

He finally persuaded Henry Fox

to take the office in January, 1755.

Fox had previously held

out for the office of Secretary of State, but he decided to lead the Commons without it.

In addition to the fact that he

was deprived of the office he had coveted, he was granted so little power by Newcastle as to make his leadership in the Commons ineffective, and finally in October, 1756, he resigned in disgust.

Again Newcastle tried to find a leader.

This

time he failed completely, and he himself resigned in the fol­ lowing month, although "There was no particular objection to him as Prime Minister.

The trouble was that when the Prime

Minister is a Peer, two men are necessary. moner, one is sufficient.112

1 Blauvelt, op. cit.. p. 191. 2 Ibid.. p. 195.

When he is a Com­

14 The third factor, I.e., the necessity that the leader of the House of Commons should have a strong following in the House, is also related to the sequence of events already de­ scribed.

After Newcastle resigned, came the first Pitt admin­

istration.

Pitt for some time had been proclaimed both by

himself and by the British public as a crusader for the people. He was one of the most popular men in Britain, and as such his administration should have been a success.

But it, too, was

short-lived because he could not obtain sufficient support in the Commons.

Pitt did not resign, but was dismissed by

an act of personal sovereignty on the part of the King but one which never would have been ventured upon, had the minister possessed an enthusiastic following in the Lower House. Thus it was proved that even conspicuous ability and full power were not sufficient to secure success to the leader of the House of Commons. He must have a following in that House.^ Even before the time of Walpole the need for some kind of party organization to control the action of Parliament was recognized.

But until Walpole became first minister

little effective party organization existed.

Government

had been largely determined by a group of ministers who were appointed at the pleasure of the Crown, although the Kingfs prerogatives were sometimes restricted.

Walpole himself was

not indifferent to the importance of retaining the royal

^ Blauvelt, op. cit., p. 195.

15 favor, and he was singularly astute in obtaining it through the influence of the fueen.

Royal favor had been, and was

still at the time Walpole became first minister, the key to the success of any administration, because royal assent usually meant at least the passive assent of the opposition. But Walpole was not content, to. have his administra­ tion depend on such a tenuous relationship.

He is said to

have been the first minister f!to organize all the force of the country on the principle of party. Ifl

One of the methods

he used was to get the wealthy Whig families to spend tftheir money freely so as to secure the small and corrupt constitu­ encies.

This gave the party considerable control over the

borough representation, while of the representatives of the counties, nine-tenths were relatives or dependents of the great Whig families.”^

He was likewise able to gain the

support of the financial interests with his commercial poli­ cy, and that of the landed interests by reducing the land tax.Walpole not only sought the support of the various in­ terests throughout the country, but he insisted also upon strong organization and unanimity within the cabinet.

^ Blauvelt, op. cit., p. 199 S Ibid., p. 199. ^

He

16 spent a great deal of time and money trying to secure not the support of the opposition, but that of the members of his own party.

And although he spent large sums of money (which he

explained he used !,to bribe men not against their conscience tat for their conscience...”) to keep his ‘Whig associates from going into opposition, nevertheless, toward the end of his administration, "he was not the leader of the ffaig party, for all the Whig leaders except himself were in opposition. He was rather the leader of the Walpole party.

The business

of the party was to support Sir Robert Walpole."^

But this

only emphasizes the importance he attached to cabinet unity, for he wanted only those in his cabinet who were willing to give unquestioned obedience to himself. Another factor in the development of party government was the growth of an organized opposition.

Perhaps, Walpole him­

self was more responsible for this than any other single in­ dividual.

Those who were opposed to Walpole were almost

forced to establish some form of organization in order to counter the effective control Walpole maintained over the Whig, party.

And it was such an opposition that finally over­

threw Walpole in 1742, even though there was only one point of agreement among the opposition, the common desire to get »

•** Blauvelt. op. cit.. p. 210.

17 rid of Walpole. A further significant development in this period was the growing strength of the electorate, not so much in numbers, but in the amount of pressure it was able to exert upon the government.

This was due partially to the fact that the

powers of government had come to reside more and more in the House of Commons, the House which was the more responsive to the popular will.

The position of the electorate is especi­

ally demonstrated in the election of 1741, when the time had come for the dissolution of Parliament.

Walpole had become

increasingly unpopular in recent years because of his half­ hearted support of the War of Jenkins Ear (1739), and the War of the Austrian Succession (1741).

As Lecky points out, Wal­

pole was "emphatically a peace minister, and even had it been otherwise, no minister can command the requisite national en­ thusiasm if he is conducting a war of which he notoriously d i s a p p r o v e s . T h e r e were other factors which contributed to the popular discontent.

Bad frosts and poor harvests in­

creased the cost of bread to almost "famine prices."

Riots

were frequent throughout England, in one of which some sol­ diers took "injudicious and hasty” action, and a rumor spread that the ministry was trying to "coerce the voters by military

1 Lecky, ojq. cit.. vol. i, pp. 462-63.

force.”

For these last events Walpole was probably in no way

responsible, bat the people gave vent to their suffering and displeasure by blaming the government for everything. Walpole tried desperately to maintain his position in spite of popular sentiment through his ”party connections, borough influence, and a lavish expenditure of secret service m o n e y . . . B u t when Parliament met in December, 1741, Walpole had a very weak majority, and eight weeks later he resigned after being defeated on a relatively unimportant matter, an election petition. There were other evidences of the growing strength of democracy in Britain which were a cause for grave concern among the conservative classes.

It was not so much what the

people did, but it was the Ideas which they espoused.

One

interesting pamphlet credited to Lord Egmont nicely expresses this widespread concern.

The pamphlet is titled, Faction

Detected by the Evidence of Facts, in which the author de­ scribes a party of malcontents, assuming to themselves, though very falsely, the title of the people, claim with it the pretention which no people could have a right to claim, of creating themselves into a new Order in the State. affecting a superiority to the whole Legislature, inso­ lently taking upon them to dictate to all the three es­ tates, in which the absolute power of the government by all the laws of this country has indisputably resided

1 Lecky, op. cit.. vol. i, p. 465.

19 ever since it was a government, and endeavoring in effect to animate the people to resume into their own hands that vague and loose authority, which exists (unless in theory) in the people of no country on earth, and the inconveni­ ence of which is so obvious, that it is the first step of mankind, when formed into society, to divest themselves of it, and to delegate it forever from themselves.-** An indication of the extent to which members of Parliament would go to protect themselves from the "mob" is their repeat­ ed opposition to the publication of the proceedings of the Leg­ islature.

In 1728 a law was passed by Parliament which made

the printing of "any part of its proceedings...a breach of privilege."

Again in 1738 sin attempt was made by Sir William

Wyndham to make the proceedings available to the public when he said, "No gentleman ought to be ashamed that the world should know every word that he speaks in the House."2

But he

received no support. In spite of the restrictions thus imposed, methods were devised of smuggling information out of the chambers. the names of the speakers were disguised.

Usually

A man by the name

of Cave issued his reports under the title, "Debates in the Senate of Great Lilliput."

-*• Lecky, ojd. cit.. vol. i, p. 467. Note that it was a man of Egmontfs reactionary character who was one of the first Secretaries of State under Grenville. See supra. p. 17. Note also how closely the above quotation compares to some of the ideas of Thomas Hobbes who wrote in the previous century. 2 Blauvelt, ojd. cit.. p. 213.

so One more example will serve to illustrate the growing strength of public opinion.

It will he remembered that Wil­

liam Pitt succeeded Newcastle in 1756 largely as a consequence of his wide popularity.

”He was appointed neither by the King

or by Parliament, but by the people, the first and only mini­ ster who has been,in such a position.”^* Although his admini­ stration did not last long, because of other factors, never­ theless, he attained his position mainly by the pressure of popular demand.2 Until the reign of George II it was not customary to designate the leading cabinet officer as "first minister,” although the title was used by George I when he asked Lord Townshend to form a government in 1714.

At the same time,

Walpole was name Paymaster of the Forces and First Lord of the Treasury, and in the

year following, 1715, he became Chan­

cellor of the Exchequer.

Walpole held offices whichlater on

were regarded as offices

of the Prime Minister only, and yet

Walpole did not gain complete ascendancy until

1721. By

that date the Stanhope-Sunderland faction which had kept the

Blauvelt, op. cit., p. 215 2 George II is supposed to have spoken the following words to Pitt: nSir, you have taught me to look for the sense of my people in another place than the House of Commons.” (Blauvelt, op. cit.. pp. 215-16.)

21 \

Whig party split for four years came to an end, and Townshend as foreign minister, and Walpole as finance minister, were in control of the party and of the government. At first they seemed to have exercised coordinate powers, neither superior over the other, hut each reserving for him­ self the dominant position in his own sphere.

This relation­

ship existed until the financial demands of Townshend*s for­ eign policy made it necessary for Walpole to face a hostile House of Commons.^*

Walpolefs position was^made the more em­

barrassing because it was Townshend, not Walpole, who had the support and favor of the King.

But when George II came to the

throne in 1727, Walpole found it no longer necessary to depend upon Townshend for royal favor, and the result was "that Towns­ hend was made to feel that his position was thoroughly second­ ary.

In 1729 he resigned.”^ For twenty-one years, 1721-1741, Walpole was the dominant

political figure in Britain. title of Prime Minister.

And yet he refused to take the

That he was, and had been in effect,

Prime Minister is indicated when the House of Lords in 1741 moved an address to the Crown urging the dismissal of Walpole because "he had made himself sole minister."

Although this

^ This was the occasion of the Treaty with Hanover in 1725.

2

Blauvelt. on. cit.. p. 223.

motion was defeated, the sentiments of the Lords were included in the Hournal of that House*1

To this charge Walpole replied:

”1 unequivocally deny that I am sole and Prime Minister, and that to my influence and direction all the affairs of govern­ ment must be attributed.” Following the fall of Walpole there was a period of intra­ party strife among the Whig leaders centering around Pulteney and Carteret on the one hand, and the Pelhams (Henry Pelham and the Duke of Newcastle) on the other.

The Earl of Wilming­

ton became the "nominal head of the government,” a man ”of the most moderate intelligence.” Lord of the Treasury.

His official position was First

With the support of Walpole, however,

Henry Pelham became the de facto prime minister.

He disputed

the top position in government with Carteret until 1744 when Pelham emerged the victor after Carteret1s resignation.

From

1744 to 1754, "Henry Pelham may be considered as first minister.

One of the passages maintained that "a sole or even a first minister is an officer unknown to the law of Britain, inconsistent with the law of the country, (and) it plainly appearing to us that Sir Robert Walpole had for many years acted as such by taking upon himself the chief if not the sole direction of affairs in the different branches of the administration, we could not but esteem it an indispensible duty to offer our most humble advice to his Majesty for the removal of a minister so dangerous to the King, and to the Kingdom.” (Blauvelt, op. cit.. p. 224.) 2

Ibid., p. 229.

23 It was during the Pelham administration that the word "premier" was used "to denote the head of the government." And yet it would be incorrect to say that the office of Prime Minister as such had become definitely established, was rather primus inter pares.

Pelham

Pelham shared the powers of

government with his brother, the Duke of Newcastle, and Lord Hardwicke, the most able lawyer of his day, and only a "very slight preeminence was given to Pelham."-*In the administration of Newcastle and Pitt which fol­ lowed, Newcastle held the office of First Lord of the Trea­ sury, and William Pitt was Secretary of State and War Mini­ ster.

Newcastle, by virtue of the office he held, should

have been regarded as first minister, but he was partially eclipsed by the more spectacular and popular Pitt who domi­ nated the scene through an office which today is not regarded as an office of the Prime Minister. From these observations it can be seen that there had not as yet developed the position of ex officio Prime Minister which today, and for some time past, has been associated with the office of First Lord of the Treasury, but which was not officially recognized until the passage of the Ministers of the Crown Act in 1937.

1 Blauvelt, op. cit.. p. 229.

In the British political system of today it is customary for the ministers to act more or less in unison on public mat ters.

It is likewise customary, when the necessity arises,

for the ministers to resign in a body.

The custom is not a

new one, for Henry Pelham and his ministers had resigned in a body as early as 1746, but at that time it was "regarded with great c o n s t e r n a t i o n . A n o t h e r contrast is indicated in the fact that all ministers in the earlier period did not have the right to be consulted on public matters.

It was

much more frequently the case that a group of three or four men, a cabal, ran the affairs of state with only a necessary regard for the opinions of the lesser ministers. Moreover, it was not uncommon for some ministers to be in opposition to the main policies of their leaders.

We have

seen how the Sunderland-Stanhope faction of the Whig party worked against Lord Townshend, and how Carteret opposed Wal­ pole and the Pelhams.

After the death of Pelham (1754) Pitt

and Fox, while holding positions in the government, were actively engaged (and successfully) in removing Sir Thomas Robinson from the leadership of the House of Commons.2

It

was during this period that Grenville joined with Pitt in

**• Blauvelt, op. cit. ■, p. 230. 2 See infra. Chapter II.

See supra.

25 opposing the government of which they both were members, al­ though Grenville seems to have done it only out of personal loyalty to Pitt. But there was at least one Prime Minister in the first half of the 18th century who insisted upon cabinet unity, and that was Robert Walpole.

His long administration is partly

due to the facts that he would stand for no opposition from within the cabinet, and that whenever feasible he dismissed the ministers who would not support his policies.

Such was

the case when Walpole met opposition from some of his col­ leagues over his Excise Bill, although he himself had earlier abandoned the Bill because he feared trouble in trying to enforce it.**Notwithstanding the fact that Walpole had considerable success in maintaining cabinet unity during the course of his long administration, one of the important causes for his downfall was the factionalism within the cabinet itself.

His

final defeat "was due almost as much to the opposition of his colleagues, as to opposition in the House of Commons.

In his

The men dismissed were Lord Chesterfield, the Duke of Montrose, Lord Marchmont, and Lord Clinton. Lord Cobham and the Duke of Bolton were deprived of their military rank. Walpole introduced the Bill but abandoned it when it met with widespread popular resistance. And although the measure was dropped, Walpole later dismissed these men because they had opposed it from the beginning. (Lecky, op. cit., vol. i, p. 401.)

resignation he was true to his principles.

So long as it was

possible to maintain discipline in the administration, he main­ tained it.

When this was no longer possible, he resigned.

The extent to which cabinet disunity affected the admini­ stration of George Grenville will be related later.

During

the Grenville administration it was the deliberate policy of George III to encourage "divided cabinets" in order that he himself might effect greater control for himself in the admin­ istration of affairs.

But the development of parliamentary

and cabinet government by 1760 had gone so far as to make in many ways the policies of George III disastrous for the coun­ try.

He failed to see that the changes in government which

had taken place prior to his accession were not merely the techniques of a political party, but were actually changes in the constitutional structure of the nation.

Under this

misconception he tried to restore the royal prerogative and the ascendancy of the monarch over parliament.

That he fail­

ed to do so did not lessen the unfortunate consequences both to himself and to his people. SUMMARY Some of the more important political developments which took place in the first sixty years of the 18th century have

Blauvelt, ojd. cit. . pp. 238-59.

27 been indicated.

It has been pointed out that the arbitrary

power of the king to appoint and dismiss his ministers had come to an end.

Several instances occur in which kings, es­

pecially George II, tried to exercise this power, leading only to embarrassment to themselves. in the

We

have seen also the change

relative position of the two houses

ofParliament.

The Septennial Act increased the length of Parliaments from three to seven years, giving the House of Commons greater stability and dignity. of the

The greater significance of the "power

purse," and the influence of Robert

Walpolealso added

to the strength of the lower house. This also was noted:

the importance, even the necessity

for the Prime Minister to be a member of the House of Commons, and likewise the necessity for full powers and a strong follow­ ing. Another important development was the increased popular interest in politics, and the attempts that were made to re­ strain the mob by forbidding the publication of the debates which took place in Parliament.

William Pitt obtained office

because of his great popularity. Finally, interesting changes were taking place with regard to cabinet unity and the inter-relationship of the ministers. Although there was as yet no ex officio Prime Minister, there was, nevertheless, a de facto Prime Minister.

The significance

of cabinet unity was recognized in 1746 when Henry Pelham and his ministers resigned in a body.

Ministerial inter-responsi­

bility and dependence was not complete, but the threat of united action must have been a threat to the exercise of arbitrary au­ thority by the King. This is the background of political structure against which George Grenville played his part, especially in the 1860fs. Grenville began his political career as a member of the Whig party.

But as Prime Minister from 1765 to 1765 he was the ex­

ponent of royal prerogative and Tory conservatism.

The story

of his shift from "liberal" to "conservative” policies is re­ lated in the chapters that follow.

CHAPTER II THE EARLE POLITICAL CAREER 4

OF

GEORGE GRENVILLE1

George Grenville was born on October 14, 1712.

He was

educated at Eton* and later (February, 1730) matriculated at Christ Church, Oxford.

In 1729 Grenville was admitted as a

student of the Inner Temple, and of Lincoln1s Inn on February 21, 1733.2

Although his career at law was comparatively short,

1 The account by George Grenville of the events taking place during his early life is contained in a narrative which is dated, April 12, 1762. The avowed purpose of his writing such an account after so long a lapse of time was: wTo recall to mind the circumstances and various causes which have alienated the affections of my brother Lord Temple, and produced a breach between me and that part of my family, is a disagreeable and painful task, but the situation I am in makes it incumbent upon me, however silent I may be upon the subject to the public, to give an account of this transaction through all its stages, that those who may be affected by it may be enabled to judge of the injustice and cruelty. I have met with, and how little accountable I am for the consequences that may attend it . n (Grenville Papers, vol. i, p. 422.) Much of the information in this chapter is taken from this account. The account is obviously as apologia. and is suf­ fused with a long bitterness against the ill-treatment he received at the hands of William Pitt, who in 1754 married Grenville*s sister, and the ill-treatment of his brother, Richard, who was later created Lord Temple. % Dictionary of National Biography. vol. viii, p. 556 ff.

it was to influence both his political life, and the manner in which he approached the problems of politics and of men* The person who urged Grenville to change from a purely legal to a political career was his uncle, Lord Cobham.

It

was under the aegis of Cobham that a small group of young men began concurrent and colorful careers in English poli­ tics.

Besides George Grenville and his brother, Richard,

there were George Iyttelton and William Pitt, all of whom, supporting as they did the older Cobham fs effort to raise himself in government, came to be dubbed by various names, such as the "Cousinhood," the 11Cobham Cubs,” and the "Boy Patriots."

As early as 1755, lyttelton and Pitt had join­

ed with Cobham in opposition to the Administration, and the entire group took on the shape of an organised opposition by the summer of 1735.-*-

That the enthusiasm of the ”Boy Pat­

riots” was at times irksome to Robert Walpole' is evident by a remark he once made: ”It is but refusing to gratify an un­ reasonable or insolent, demand, and up starts a patriot.”2 And although these young men resorted to such phrases as "patriotism11 and "virtue," nevertheless, "subsequent events showed that they would support a not over-scrupulous admin-

1 Davis, Rose Mary, The Good Lord Lyttelton * p., 45* 2 Parliamentary Debates. vol. xi, p. 1286, in ibid. p. 46.

istration under which they held office.tt*1* Through the influence of his uncle, George Grenville en­ tered Parliament for Buckingham, a borough which he repre­ sented until his death in 1770.2

In these early days, the

affection and regard in which Grenville was held tiy his friends, and his zeal in politics are indicated in a group of letters he received while he was recovering from an ill­ ness in France.

Viscount Cornbury wrote:

I do not know, that any party is worth killing one­ self for, and I think I do know that a party is what, whether one will or no, one must finally act for. I say the more upon this, because, if I know you, your zeal is not according to your knowledge, with regard to your own constitution.5 A little later in the year Pitt wrote: ...you can have ho idea how much care you ought to take of yourself, unless you could hear how mankind talk of you, and how earnestly they wish to see your health perfectly restored and confirmed.4 And from George Lyttelton, Grenville*s cousin, who was al­ ways attached to Grenville, and wished for Grenville a speedy recovery: How ardently I wish it no words can tell you; every

1 Davis, oj>. cit.. p. 47. 2 Grenville Papers. vol. i, p. 432. 3 Ifrid. p. 1, August 3, 1742. 4 Ibid. October 21, 1742.

day I live convinces me more of the value of such men as you...1 Grenville’s first adventure into politics was in con­ junction with a faction which some day hoped to get into power.

In Grenville’s case, he was associated with a group

which for many years was in opposition to the administration, and sometimes even opposed the administration in which mem­ bers of the group held office.

Very early in his political

career Grenville spoke against the perpetual family alliance between England and Hanover, and against the accepted obli­ gation of England to support Hanover in order to maintain the balance of power in Europe. The first instance of his opposition in this regard was that in which he opposed the grant of money to the Hanover­ ian troops during the War of the Austrian Succession. In ^ *■ $ this gesture he was joined by Pitt, and together they, for the first time, broke with Grenville’s uncle, Lord Cobham. Although Grenville at this time quite probably opposed the grant from purely party consideration, nevertheless, in his speech in the House of Commons in December, 1742, he intro­ duced his remarks by saying: Sir: though I am far from thinking myself able to produce, without study or premeditation, a complete answer to the elaborate and artful harangue which you have now heard, yet as I cannot be convinced of

1 Ibid. October 24, 174S.

33 the reasonableness of the measures which have been de­ fended with so much subtility, I shall at least endeav­ our to show, that my disapprobation is not merely the effect of obstinacy, and that I have at least considered the proposals of the ministry, before I have ventured to condemn them.-1* In the following year (1744) Lord Cobham and Lord Chesterfield entered into a new relationship in the govern­ ment." Grenville was urged by Cobham to enter the Admiralty Office, which Grenville at first refused because the King had denied Pitt the office of Secretary of War, and because of the disaffection between Cobham and Pitt.

But after much per­

suasion on the part of Cobham and Grenville *s mother, and on the honest advise of Mr. Pitt, Grenville accepted.^ During the next year, although Grenville was in office, he joined with his brother, Richard, and Pitt in opposition to the government, evincing more loyalty to Pitt who was not in office than he did for the administration he was chosen to serve.® By a change of government which took place this year, (1745) Pitt became Vice-Treasurer of Ireland, and he urged Mr. Pelham to solicit the office of Paymaster General, which

^ Parliamentary History, vol. xii, p. 1051. See Appen­ dix I, p. i. Grenville questioned the wisdom of spending large sums of money on troops "...who are more desirous of re­ ceiving wages than of-deserving them.11 ^ Grenville Papersr vol i, p. 424. 3 Ibidr vol. i, p. 424.

34 he obtained*

Pelham was then successful In weaning James

Grenville (another brother of George Grenville) away from Lord Cobham and made him Deputy Paymaster *

This bit of

proselytizing climaxes the shift of loyalty of the "bqy patriots" from Lord Cobham, and henceforth they venture forth as a group in behalf of their own interests*

Not that George

Grenville and his "brother Bichard were openly opposed to Cobham, but their adherence to Pitt brought Cobham fs disfavor upon them* Grenville, who, on the basis of a kind of tradition of seniority and succession in office, had hoped to rise stead* ily to higher positions in government, was first badly treated, he thought, when a Mr, Legge was promoted into the Treasury over GrenvilXefs head*

As a consequence Grenville threatened

to resign, but was persuaded by Mr, Pelham to remain, with the promise that he should have the next vacancy in the Treasury*

In addition, Mr. Pelham promised that "neither

of the gentlemen now preferred should go out of it (the Treasury) before him.,*,w that is, if any promotions should be made from the Treasury to higher offices in the Govern­ ment, Grenville would be the first to be chosen over those then holding Treasury Offices.*^ Grenville^states that the reason he did not want to in-

^ Grenville Papers, vol. i, p. 426.

55 volve Mr, Pitt in this controversy was that he, Pitt, was trying "to_ get upon the best terms with the Administration and that Grenville was unwilling to risk this relationship. Lord Lyttelton (George), who was the only one of the original boy patriots to remain loyal the Grenville throughout his life, offered to accept A "foreign commission" in order that his place in the Treasury might be filled by Grenville.

But it

wasn*t until a year later, June, 1747, that Grenville entered the Treasury. During this entire period, Grenville maintains that he remained loyal to Pi'£t in spite of -the,, insults and indiffer­ ence to which he and George lyttelton were subjected." As Grenville wrote this account, one such instance he remembered especially.

It was during, the debate in Parliament on the

Mutiny Bill in 1748-49 that Grenville and lyttelton endeavored to support this measure,

Pitt, who had been away during most

of the debate, "came down to the House and made a speech on purpose to declare his disapprobation of the proviso that had been offered, and to treat with slight the conscientious opin­ ions of those who had voted for it; to which, however offen­ sive It was, no reply was made, either by Lord lyttelton or myself ;fr£

1 Ibid. vol. i, p. 425., g Ibid. vol. i, pp. 426-27.

36 i

It is quite possible that Grenville, when.he wrote this account in 1762, may have written into it the animosity which developed against Pitt throughout subsequent years, and dur­ ing these earlier years he may not have felt about it as he did later.

Bat according to Grenville, at that time Pitt was

more loyal to opportunity than to his friends.

And it is rea­

sonable to assume that Grenville was extremely sensitive to the least slight, even at this early date, for he himself was a man of integrity, and to find among his friends those who did not hold to the same standards as he, was frequently a source of disappointment to Grenville.

Later in life it

was this extreme sensitiveness which partly prejudiced his relations with George III and so many other of the associates with whom he had to work.

And Grenville never seemed to re­

alize that his playing the part of a guilty conscience for the offenders did not succeed in gaining the thing he de­ sired most, the confidence and friendship of his fellows. It was not.long after Pittfs verbal attack upon Grenville that, Mr. George Bubb -Biddington resigned his office as Secre­ tary of the Navy.

Had Mr. Pelham kept his promise to Gren­

ville, the latter would have taken Doddingtonfs place.

In­

stead, Mr. Legge, who had preceded Grenville into the Trea­ sury, was promoted to fill the vacancy.

As Grenville claims

he had done on the previous occasion, he did not seek to press his claims because "...the situation Mr. Pitt was then

in must have occasioned a rupture with him, (Mr* Pelham) and probably difficulties with my brothers (as none of them ex­ pressed any readiness to support my pretensions), had I as­ serted my claim at that time."1

Grenville then goes on to

say, "Thus I continued in the same office till Mr. Pelham1s death in 1754, giving what support I was able to those who never gave any to me."^ It was some time during these immediate years that George* brother Richard began to break with George and attach himself to the fortunes of Pitt.

The consequences would probably not

have been felt so deeply by George if they had been purely political, but they assumed a personal character.

Grenville

attempts to describe the reasons for this as stemming from a family affair in which he maintains he was innocent.^

Whether

^ Grenville Papers. vol. i, p. 427. 2 Ibid., vol. i, p. 427.

g

"During this whole period, I had cultivated with the utmost care the highest degrees of friendship and affection with Lord Temple, (his brother, Richard) though I had occa­ sionally experienced many transitory coldnesses from him on account of a family uneasiness subsisting between my mother and him, upon occasion of my sister, Lady Hester, (she later married Pitt) who complained of being less kindly treated by him than she thought she deserved. The affection I had borne to her from her childhood made me desirous, if possible, to do her every good office in my power, which some were base enough to represent to Lord Temple as a wish to divide the family, and to put myself at the head of a party in it. "I should not have believed this possible, if my mother had not informed me that Lord Temple himself had told her so,

38 Lord Temple was justified in his conduct toward Grenville or not, it can be said that Temple was jealous for power, and be­ ing a man of considerable wealth, he increased his power through his subsidies to Mr. Pitt, who was frequently in fin­ ancial distress.^-

He had neither the scruples nor the con­

scientiousness of Grenville, and was no doubt frequently bored with his brother1s tediousness. In the first week of March, 1754, Mr. Pelham died, leav­ ing King George II in a situation he had hoped would never come to pass.

After he had received word of Pelham1s pass­

ing, he is supposed to have said, ”1 shall now have no more peace.”2

The implications of his statement were directed to­

ward William Pitt, with whom the King seldom was able to get along. The successor of Pelham was the Duke of Newcastle, who had the respect neither of the King nor of his fellows.

which Lady Chatham (George1s sister and Pittas wife) very well knows to be true, as well as the earnestness with which I have endeavoured to justify him to my mother, even at the hazard of offending her, of which both Lord Temple and Lady Chatham know she has given the most authentic testimony, both to Lord Temple and Lady Chatham.” (Grenville Papers, vol. i, p. 428.) See a letter from Lady Hester Pitt and Mr. Pitt to Earl Temple, November 21, 1755, Grenville Papers, vol. i, p. 151. 2 Walpole, Horace, Memoirs of George II. vol. i, p. 378.

39 "George II complained of him that he was unfit to be Chamber­ lain to the smallest court in Germany.•♦"•** But in spite of this fact he was a man whose support was necessary for the p success of even greater figures. It was at this juncture that William Pitt seems to have become aware of his first great opportunity to advance his public career.

Not that he hoped to get into power im­

mediately, or even during the reign of George II, but he be­ gan laying plans by which he and his associates were to ob­ tain power eventually. On the day after Pelham*s death, March 7, 1754, Pitt wrote to Sir George Lyttelton and George Grenville: I will offer to the consideration of my friends but two things: the object to be wished for, the public; and the means; which the object itself seems to suggest; for the pursuit of it, my own object for the public, is, to support the King in quiet as long as he may have to live; and to strengthen the hands of the Princess of Wales, s a# nfuch as may be, in order to maintain her power, in, the ’Government, in case of the misfortune of the King’s demise. The means, as I said, suggest them-

^ Lecky, op. cit.. vol. ii, p. 439.

p

He was Secretary of State for almost thirty years, and First Lord of the Treasury for ten. ® She was that daughter-in-law of George II, whose hus­ band had died in 1750, thus depriving her of the prospect of becoming Queen of England. It was through this back door that the Pitt faction, along with Grenville, were able to. get into power after the death of George II.

40 selves: an union of all those in action who are already united in their wishes, as to the object...^ At this time Sir George Lyttelton who was as innocent of in­ trigue as any of his friends, was on the best terms with New­ castle of all the "patriots", and it was through him that New­ castle tried to sound out the dispositions of the rest of his group, that is, Grenville, Lord Temple and Pitt.

In reply to

these "soundings" the latter were cautious in making no com­ mitments, and said they preferred to "speak for ourselves whenever the occasion should require it." Pitt, who apparently was worried lest the fortunes of politics should wean away from him some of those in whom he placed his confidence, wrote to Lord Temple on the same day, March

in order,

...to give you my apprehensions of Sir Georgefs want of discretion and address in such soundings as will be, and have been, made upon him, with regard to the disposition of his friends.2 It was due partly to this "want of discretion" that strained relations, and finally a complete break, resulted between Pitt and Lyttelton.^

1 Grenville P a p e r s m l * , i, pv,106 ff^ •2 Ibid..pp. 110-111. 3 "Pitt and Lord Temple resented Lyttelton1s negotiating for them, though it is certain he had used all his endeavours to serve them— but as they had meant to have the sole power

41 To the chagrin and to

disappointment of Pitt his plans came

an abrupt halt, for the time being, at least.

Grenville

was taken into the government as Treasurer of the Navy without, as Grenville recounts, the "intervention" of Pitt or Temple who "were dissatisfied with the turn things took.11-** Pitt, who had wanted.to be Secretary of State, felt that Sir Thomas Robinson and Mr. Legge "had all been put over his head." Henry Fox, who had hoped to become Chancellor of the Exchequer or

Secretary of State, was also neglected because he had re­

cently fallen out with

the Duke of Newcastle.

It was at this

point that Fox and Pitt, both deprived of positions in the Government, salved their differences long enough to work to­ gether against the Duke of Newcastle in his (Newcastlefs) "plan of governing the House of Commofas."2 On April S, 1754, in a long letter of explanation and apology Newcastle tried to pacify Pitt in reply to Pittfs owh letter.

Newcastle maintained throughout that the course

he took was the only one possible for him, that he had acted upon the principle of his "honour," "esteem," and "love" of

of serving, not to be served, they treated him as ill as if he had sold them." (Walpole, op. cit., vol. i, p. 414.) ^ Grenville Papers, vol. i, p. 430. 2 Ibid.. vol. i, p. 451.

Pitt,

He goes on to explain that one of the reasons why Sir

Thomas Robinson was made Secretary of State was that he f’...had not those parliamentary talents which could give jealousy, or in that light set him above the rest of the Kingfs servants there...”1

In short, Robinson was a necessary evil and per­

fectly innocuous.

And the reason for not making Pitt Chan­

cellor of the Exchequer was explained by Newcastle thus:

he

did not believe that a man of Pitt*s abilities would condes­ cend to serve under Newcastle, who was, of course, Secretary of the Treasury, and consequently would have been Pitt*s su­ perior officer.

But to this Pitt replied on the 5th of April:

As to the chancellor of the exchequer, I hope your Grace does not think me filled with so impertinent a vanity, as to imagine it any disparagement to myself to serve under your Grace, as the head of the treasury. Pitt goes on to say that if his name had meriely been suggest­ ed to the King, ltmy honour would have been saved, and I should •z

have declined it with pleasure...11^

Although Pitt closed this letter with professions of loyalty and attachment to Newcastle, long before this he had laid the basis for his bitter opposition to the Newcastle Government,

1 Pitt to Newcastle, Chatham Correspondence. vol. i, p. 97. 2 Ibid., pp. 100-101. 3 Ibid.f p. 101.

43 ♦..the essence of which is to talk modestly, to declare attachment to the King*s government, and.the future plan under the Princess.3. neither to intend nor to intimate the quitting the service, to give no terrors by talking big, to make no declarations of thinking ourselves free by Mr.. Pelham1s death, to look out and fish in troubled waters, and perhaps help trouble them in order to fish the better: but to profess and to resolve bona fide to act like public men in a dangerous conjuncture for our country, and support which they will please to settle it; to let them see we shall do this from principles of pub' lie good, not as the bubbles of a few fair words...^ Contrary to these rather harmless intentions, when Par­ liament opened in November, 1754, both Pitt and Temple at­ tacked Robinson, Secretary?of. State•

In these attacks Lyt^-»

telton and Grenville largely refrained, and the coldness and displeasure of Pitt and Temple noticeably increased.

How

Pitt could claim to have the real interests of Grenville and Lyttelton at heart,^ and at the same time insist that they oppose the government of which they were members is incon­ sistent, but not difficult to understand.

For in the letter

^ See supra. p. 39. 2 Pitt to Temple, March 11, 1754, Grenville Papers, vol. i, p. 112 ff. g

”...You know so thoroughly my heart on public matters, that not even one word is necessary on the subject; nor~is it, I hope, more necessary to tell you that the Treasurer of the Navy gives me great pleasure, especially if the office-be allowed to claim its right of succession, in virtue of the precedent lately made. A better right it will have (whether it will be allowed or not), the ability of the possessor of it to serve his country in a higher sphere.*.” (Grenville Papers, vol. i^ pp. 118-19, Pitt to Grenville, April 6, 1754.)

44 just quoted it is obvious that Pitt regarded Grenvillefs of­ fice merely as a means to an end, and the immediate interests of Grenville, who was less hurried in his drive to power, were certainly not uppermost in Pitt’s intentions. In opposing the government Grenville somewhat reluctantly joined Pitt, although he "had personally no c o m p l a i n t . G r e n ­ ville, though he was not without interest for himself, was at this stage of his career primarily a follower, and his adher­ ence to the desires of Pitt was frequently counter to his own best interests.

That he was aware of where Pitt was leading *

him and the others of the "patriots” is revealed in that Gren­ ville at this time urged Pitt not to push "things to extremi­ ties.”2

In recounting the events of 1754 eight years after­

ward, Grenville says that he supported Pitt in opposition to the government, ...from consideration of Mr. Pitt’s circumstances, whose marriage with my sister, out of mere affection to both, I had facilitated to the utmost of my power, the whole transaction having been carried on while my sister lived in the house with us, which she did every summer till her marriage.3 He goes on to say that he personally had hoped to gain nothing by the marriage since

he had "neverderived the least advantage

Grenville Papers, vol. i, 2 Ibid. f vol. i,

p. 431.

S Ibid.. vol. i,

p. 431.

p. 431.

45 to myself from my intercourse with Mr. Pitt,"^ hut he did not helieve that "my behaviour on this occasion was to bring an enemy instead of a friend into our family, and to alienate the affections of a sister, who, I believe, will not deny that I had every merit of Uninterrupted love and attachment to her, Thus we have the picture of Pitt and Fox who had been respectively Paymaster-General and Secretary of War since 1746, and Grenville, treasurer of the Navy, working from within to destroy or discredit the administration, for not only was Sec­ retary of State Robinson abused, but Newcastle himself was subjected to continued ridicule.^ As Lecky points out, "the position of the Government be­ came intolerable."

But instead of dismissing them all, New­

castle summoned Fox, and as a result of the negotiations, Fox "desisted from his covert opposition to his chiefs, disclaimed all private connection with Pitt, and, although he was unable

^ Grenville Papers, vol. i, p. 431. S Ibid.. vol. i, pp. 431-32. 3 "It is evident that this course was an outrageous vio­ lation of the most ordinary rules of political loyalty and honour, and it is equally evident that any prime minister of common firmness would have Instantly and at all hazards dis­ missed a subordinate who was guilty of it." (Lecky, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 442.)

as yet to obtain the position of Secretary of State as he de­ sired, he was called to the Cabinet Council in January, 1755, and obtained some promotions for his adherents in the mini­ stry. This move by Fox, of course, permanently alienated Pitt, because, since it was the purpose of Pitt to break the New­ castle ministry, the retreat of Fox from opposition tended to weaken Pittfs position.

But in explaining to Fox that he

w...could not go with him either into Court or Opposition,” Pitt did not insist that Fox ”had assumed too much, or be­ haved improperly,” but merely that f,they were upon different l i n e s . . . A t the same time, Fox had neither a sense of guilt, nor felt that this new arrangement should cause such a separation, for ”he expressed the most earnest desire to continue his communication with Mr. Pitt and his friends, professing that his views and ideas were still the same.”*^ In the Fall of 1755 the King and Newcastle began their effort to get through Parliament a bill which would grant

1 Lecky, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 442-43. 2 Grenville Papers, vol. i, p. 142. For accounts of this conversation see Harris, Life of Hardwicke. vol. iii, pp. 27-34, and a letter from Mr. Potter to Earl Temple, dated ”about the middle of October, 1755,” in Grenville Papers. vol. i, p. 140 ff., and Grenville Papers, vol. i, p. 432 ff. 3 Ibid., vol. i, p. 432.

47 subsidies to Hanover and Russia,

War with France was immi­

nent, and it was in a measure a move to strengthen Englandfs position on the continent. Bavaria had just expired.

Hanover1s treaties with Saxony and A new treaty was made between Eng­

land and Hesse, and a move was set on foot to obtain one with Russia.

Wfilliam Pitt, probably more in the hope of breaking

the Newcastle government than anything else, attacked not only the proposed treaties, but also ”the Ministers personally.11^* Pitt was joined, of course, by Grenville in the attack and in a speech before Parliament against the treaties he won the praise of even such a critic as Horace Walpole.2 To forestall this opposition Newcastle tried to persuade Pitt to take a position in the Cabinet which Pitt refused with 11contemptuous arrogance.1,3 With nothing left for him to do, Newcastle, on November 20, 1755, dismissed Pitt, Lord Temple, Grenville and Mr. Legge, who, as Chancellor of the Exchequer under Newcastle, had been persuaded by Pitt to refuse to sign the warrants for the subsidies after the bill had passed Par­ liament. "During the previous summer, 1755, the Princess of Wales,

Grenville-Paper s. vol. i, p. 454. Grenville said, ffI confined myself to the measure only.11 g Toynbee, Mrs. Paget, ed., The Letters of Horace Walpole. vol. iii, p. 567. 3 Lecky, op. cit». vol. ii, p. 448.

48 although denied the prospect of becoming Queen by the death of her husband, began laying plans for the accession of her son*

She sounded out some of those in the Opposition who she

thought would be helpful in restoring the British Monarchy to its rightful place after her son should come to the throne* She sent'a message to Pitt and his friends, ...desiring to know the state of our connection...and whether we were at liberty to enter into the closest engagement with Leicester House. . The answer to the Princess was favorable, and immediately thereafter followed a series of interview with Lord Bute (who had already ingratiated himself in the affections of

the

Princess, and who was one of the few people who was allowed to see the young prince) and "between the Princess of Wales and Mr. Pitt, where the assurances of her protection and sup2

port were repeated in the strongest manner.11

In writing the

account of this Grenville goes on to say that since both his group and the Princess1 side of the Royal Family had been so evilly treated by George II and the Duke of Climberland, a union was formed "with Lord Bute, under that part of the Royal Family."3

^ Grenville Papers, vol. i, p. 432. 2 Ibid., vol. i, p. 433. 3 Ibid., vol. i, p. 433.

After Grenville had been

As a result of these talks, a party began to take shape in the House of Commons in which this relationship to Leices­ ter House came to be Tfpublicly avowed.”^

And when Parliament

opened in the following fall, the party was prepared to work with the Princess at Leicester House against the subsidies above mentioned, and against the administration in general. Grenville explains that in their opposition to the government they were ”supported by Leicester House and joined by the Tor­ ies,11 and that this joint opposition ”continued during the re­ mainder of the session.”^ It was with the eventual prospect of coming into govern­ ment in support of the yet uncrowned king that Grenville, Pitt, et al., entered so vigorously into opposition after Parliament opened. had been

Mr. Legge, a very able finance minister,

weaned away from the Duke of Newcastle, and had been

dismissed by Newcastle, he received the following letter from Lord Bute: ”...1 must tell you, my worthy friend, what I should have wished you would have told me on such an occasion; 1tis glorious to suffer in such a cause and with such compan­ ions; in times iike_these, the post of honour is the private station. I own I from my heart congratulate you, and I am proud to call a man of your distinguished character my friend, for well may this be the prelude only to what your merit loudly calls for.” (Grenville Papers, vol. i, p. 148, Lord Bute to Grenville, November 20, 1755.) 1 Ibid.. vol. i, p. 453. ^

Ibid.. vol. i, p. 435.

50 recommended TTin the strongest terms to Leicester House, as the person the fittest to put at the head of the revenue, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the future reign. That Pitt should have so high-handedly taken upon himself the disposition of government offices in prospect of the ac­ cession to the throne of George III was another source of ir­ ritation to Grenville.

It will be remembered that Pitt under­

stood how Grenville had felt when Mr. Legge was promoted out of the Treasury and into the Navy against the promise that Grenville should leave the Treasury first.

In this immediate

case it was not that Grenville and Legge did not get along, for Grenville !,had always lived upon good terms with Mr. Legge long before Mr. Pittfs acquaintance with him...”, but that Pitt hadnft consulted Grenville in the matter at all, and the whole arrangement ”was so contrary to those repeated profes­ sions of,his wishes to see me at the head of the House of Com­ mons, that it gave me proof how little reason I had to depend upon him.”2 As Grenville wrote in 1762, he looked back upon these events with considerable more perspective than he had at the time they occurred.

He looked back with bitterness at the

Grenville Papers, vol. i, p. 434. 2 Ibid., vol. i, p. 434.

51 great number of times he had been frustrated in his desire to^ be of service to his country; he could see now what he could not see then, that the specious explaining of Pitt, and his brothers, was merely an excuse to get him out of the way with as little inconvenience to themselves as possible.

For some­

one was always explaining to Grenville, trying to justify what apparently was a slight or betrayal, and, although Gren­ ville could not see it at the time, his fellows in government and opposition were not interested in the rise of Grenville, but merely in themselves.

If Grenville could serve a purpose

for them, he would be used for that purpose, but they didn’t want him in the way. politically moral.

Grenville was too conscientious and He wanted to rise by merit alone, and not

by employing the questionable methods of politics, intrigue, destructive criticism, disunity, and compromise of principle. Grenville was a plodder, a legalist, who could not or would not see the subtle relationship between being a politician and a statesman.

He was secure and confident when he could de­

scribe a definite rule for his conduct, but in the vast, un­ charted sphere of human and political relations he was either lost or did not dare to venture.

He lacked the imagination

necessary for true leadership; he lacked the confidence neces­ sary to break with precedence.

And, though he had the courage

to defend tradition, he lacked the wisdom to oppose it.

He

was peculiarly deficient in the perspective imperative to a

52 leader of government and men, and would not sacrifice a minor issue in order that the more important might be obtained.

He

was as inherently innocent of opportunism— it is true that he did so engage, but at the insistence of others— as he was ig­ norant of the important part it plays in getting things done. Such a man could only be worlds apart from a man like Pitt.

Pitt was almost everything that Grenville was not.

Pitt could compromise, concede, and barter. end from the beginning.

He could see the

He possessed a keen sense of values

as to the relative importance of the varied elements in poli­ tical life, an attribute wanting in Grenville. It is not difficult to see that two such men could not have essentially a common basis for understanding*

True,

they might work together temporarily, or use each other when it was profitable. other.

But they really could not understand each

The one was scrupulous about the means; the other let

the means take care of themselves.

The one was a legalist;

the other an opportunist. It was unfortunate for Grenville that his political for'tunes should have been linked with those of a man like Vtfilliam Pitt, because the conscientious Grenville came to be used as a political weapon by his master, and the ambitions and feel­ ings of Grenville were secondary to the use to which Pitt could put them.

Left to himself, Grenville probably could

have risen to a high place in finance purely on merit alone,

53 "but his impeccable character and political merit were used by others for their own ends. Grenville was not a quitter, nor was he easily discouraged. It was his persistence, more than any other factor which pre­ judiced his relationship with Pitt and his brothers.

But at

the same time it made it possible for him to become prime minister of England.

He refused, first of all, to believe

that he was wrong in the principles of his conduct, and he had the courage to face anyone he thought guilty of treachery or opportunism.

King George III was no exception.

Grenville

seemed inspired in tracking down deception and in making his opponent cringe at the lurid details of his own wickedness. In short,_ Grenville took upon himself the role of a man with a guilty conscience for the sake of his fellows in parti­ cular, and mankind in general.

Needless to say, Pitt and Gren­

ville^ brothers did not need such a conscience, nor did In fact mankind.

It was bad enough to have one*s real shortcom­

ings dragged into the open and dwelled upon, but it was much worse to be denounced for using the tools so essential to one*s trade. It is little wonder, then, that Grenville should have been avoided and shunned, insulted and betrayed.

He was the victim

of his virtues, and with his political and personal Integrity, he could not help being the object of neglect and misuse at the hands of those whose will to power was uppermost to scruple

54 and moral principle. It was after the dismissal of Pitt and the others that Lord Temple, probably the closest friend of Pitt, came to Pittfs rescue by offering him a thousand pounds a year to alleviate Pittfs unfortunate financial condition.^"

Pitt glad­

ly and thankfully availed himself of this assistance; unfor­ tunately, he not only thus obligated himself financially, but also awarded Temple a ’’disproportionate11 influence upon his judgment in political life.

Temple’s chief assets were his

wealth and his social position.

He had little if any politi­

cal ability, but he had an unbounded lust for power.

And he

no doubt saw in Pitt the opportunity of securing a place through Pitt’s ability and position.

In any case, he and

Pitt were almost inseparable in political viewpoint, and with the fortunes of Pitt rose the fortunes of Temple.

More than

once was Temple able to wreck plans for a change in government merely through his influence upon Pitt.

^ In a letter to his sister, Pitt’s wife, Temple wrote: ”1 cannot defer till tomorrow morning making a request to you, upon the success of which I have so entirely set my heart, that I flatter myself that you will not refuse it me. I must entreat you to make use of all your interest with Mr. Pitt to give his brother Temple leave to become his debtor for a thou­ sand pounds a year ’till better times; Mr. Pitt will never have it in his power to confer so great an obligation upon, dear Lady Hester, your most affectionate brother...’1 (Gren­ ville Papers, vol. i, p. 149, November 2 0 , 1755.)

55 It was in the year 1754 that the incidents leading to the French and Indian War in America and the Seven Years War in Europe began to take place.

The boundary disputes between

the French and the English in America became the cause for another major European war.

For our purpose it is sufficient

merely to suggest their origin.

The more important issues

concerning the reaction of the British Government will be considered in more detail. When the boundary disputes with the French took place, the Newcastle Government still had large majorities in both houses of Parliament.

But the weak, vacillating policy the

government pursued was to bring division within the cabinet, and create Ill-feeling and lack of confidence among the peo­ ple,

Fox and Lord Chancellor Hardwicke were bitter enemies,

and Pitt was entirely uncooperative.

In addition, it was at

this time that the Princess Dowager began her activity against the government, and ventured to align with her faction the budding opposition of which Pitt was the leader. Plans were evolved for Intercepting French merchant ves­ sels sailing between France and America, but Newcastle was re­ luctant to put them into effect lest it be considered a cause for war.

But the Princess Dowager, believing that war was

inevitable, was in favor of the !!most vigorous measures.”***

**• Lecky, op,, cit.. vol. ii, p. 447.

56 It was during this critical period that England had been negotiating on the continent with the various states mention­ ed above for the defensive alliances, and that the opposition of the Pitt faction had come so violently into the open. Pitt was opposed to a war on the continent, and pressed the need for not jeopardizing the war in America by becoming in­ volved in Europe.^ In spite of the Pitt opposition to the treaties they were carried, Hbut Government was shaken to its b a s i s . H a d it not been for the power of Fox and Murray in debate the govern­ ment would have collapsed before it did.

Popular feeling

against the government was on the increase in the spring of 1756, and when the alleged treachery of Admiral Byng (he re­ treated from the attack on Minorca) became known, public in­ dignation reached a new peak.

In this unfortunate affair,

Admiral Byng was tried for treason and shot in order to as­ suage public opinion and to absolve the Ministry from guilt.®

**• See letter, Pitt to Grenville, December, 1755, regard­ ing the appropriation of money for sending troops abroad to Europe: ”...1 think we may...assert our insular plan, by de­ claring that we mean to enable His Majesty to defend the do­ minions of England, and not to lay foundations for continent operations.” (Grenville Papers. vol. i, p. 152.) 2 Lecky, op. cit.. vol. ii, p. 448. 3 See Grenville Papers, vol. i, p. 163, Earl Temple to Mr. Grenville, June 3, 1756, for additional information on the Byng affair.

57 By the summer of 1756 the King realized that a change in government was necessary.

Negotiations were begun with Pitt,

who refused to take office if the Duke of Newcastle was to re main in any capacity, nor would he take office "to cover his retreat...”, and as a result the negotiations "ended for the present without any farther effect than a general explanation of Mr. Pittfs views and intentions. On the 17th of October, 1756, Pitt had an interview with Lord Chancellor Hardwicke about a proposed change in govern­ ment.

Lord Temple and Grenville had been informed by Pitt

of the interview before-hand, and had been requested by him to meet him after it was over, in order that he might explain what had taken place.

The interview was not successful, how­

ever, for it failed "upon the same difficulty relative to the Duke of Newcastle."^

But it was learned that Grenville had

been discussed for the position of Paymaster, and the propo­ sition was agreed to. A few days later Fox resigned, complaining that New­ castle monopolized power,"3 and realizing "that the Govern­ ment was doomed," saw "that his safest course was to abandon

*** Grenville Papers. vol. i, pp. 435-56. 2 Ibid.. vol. i, p. 436. 3 Lecky, op. cit., vol, ii, p. 457.

58 it.”1

Murry, the only remaining member of any strength, made

known his intention to leave the government and obtain the vacant Chief Justiceship of the King*s Bench.

Newcastle tried

desparately for several weeks to reform a Government (overtures to Pitt already mentioned), but at last he himself resigned in November, 1756. Fox was given the task of forming a new government. made overtures to Pitt, who refused to work with him.

He Finally,

after much ”difficult negotiation”, a government was formed under Pitt and the Duke of Devonshire, whom Pitt ”had with difficulty persuaded to obey the Kingfs commands by accepting the office of First Lord of the

Treasury.

”2

Now the long-developing plans of Pitt were beginning to come into the open.

He was to be Secretary of State; Lord

Temple, First Lord of the Admiralty with the right to appoint the rest of the admiralty board; James Grenville, a Lord of the Treasury; and Mr. Legge, Chancellor of the Exchequer. One prominent official was incredulous when he first heard of the alleged demands of Pitt, and wrote to Grenville: ...I have ventured to contradict what I heard yesterday reported in town, that Mr. Pitt has insisted upon the

1 Lecky, op. cit.. vol. ii, p. 457. 2 Grenville Papers, vol. i, p. 437.

59 Seals for himself; Lord Lieut* of I* for Lord T.; Paym. for you and something else for James; in short to make a family Administration. I am sure that this is false; and I thought I, being penetrating, saw the design of propagating such a report* Be all this as it will, though I am no Cato, I do from the bottom of my heart sigh, f0! my country! It will be remembered that Grenville had on previous occa­ sions been neglected by Pitt in the matter of public offices, onee in regard to the Treasury, at another time in regard to the Navy.

It will also be remembered that during the nego­

tiations between Mr. Pitt and Chancellor Hardwicke that it had been agreed that Grenville should be Paymaster, a very lucrative position*

But again Grenville was to be slighted.

Here is his account of what happened, written six years later: With regard to myself, when Mr. Pitt communicated to us what had passed between the Duke of Devonshire and him, he informed me, to my great surprise, that my name and that of Mr. Fox were put down jointly in the paper writ by the Duke of Devonshire, for the two offices of Pay­ master and Treasurer of the Navy; that he had insisted upon my destination for the Paymaster, but that the Duke of Devonshire had earnestly pressed the putting it down in that manner in the list of preferments' made out by him. From this shuffling account it was easy to foresee what was intended, though it was not ventured to be ex­ plained at the meeting. In a few days after I heard, though not from Mr. Pitt, but from my brothers, that Mr. Fox was to be Paymaster.2 Grenville goes on to say that he saw Pitt very little

^ Lord Hillsborough to Grenville, October 26, 1756, Grenville Papers * vol. i, p. 179*

^ Ibid., vol. i, pp. 437-38. Pitt had formerly deter­ mined never to work again with Fox.

after this because Pitt was confined at his home at Hayes with the gout.

Once after this Pitt’s friends met at Hayes, at

which time Pitt asked them whether he should insist on being Secretary for the Northern Department instead of the Southern, but no mention was made of Grenville, nor did Pitt ever speak to him about his mal-treatment toward Grenville. Because of Pitt’s jealousy of Fox’s high office (Pay­ master) , and his telling Fox that he would work with him no more than he would with the Duke of Newcastle, Fox determined to take no office at all, and the office of Paymaster became vacant a second time.

But, as Grenville writes, w...instead

of carrying into execution the appointment which had been so repeatedly made of it in my favour, it was now divided and il

given to Lord Dupplin and Mr. Potter.

It is at this point that the intentions of Grenville’s brothers toward him really become apparent.

They by this

time seem to have taken on some“of1Pitt1s disregard for Grenville, and were even insultingly indifferent to the

Grenville Papers, vol. i, pp. 458-59. "This was the more extraordinary as a very agreeable position might have been made for Mr. Potter, as Treasurer of the Household in the room of Mr. Charles Townshend, to whom the office of Treasurer of the Navy, which was the declared object of his wishes, would by this means have been opened; nor would it have been difficult to have accommodated the Duke of New­ castle fs friend Lord Dupplin, if that could be necessary, as was afterwards proved when sometime after Mr. Fox was ap­ pointed Paymaster.” (Ibid., vol. i, p. 439.)

61 injustice done him.

About them Grenville wrote:

My two brothers were privy to all that had passed upon this occasion; to them I expressed my surprise and dis­ satisfaction at &!,'behaviour so contrary not only to the friendship and alliance subsisting between us, but to the engagements of honour and good faith. I cannot say that either of them interested them­ selves at all in this complaint, or took any other part than to use their utmost endeavours to persuade me to acquiesce to it.1 Thus, deserted by his friends and brothers, there was nothing for Grenville to do but to take what they had left him, the office of Treasurer of the Navy, which he held until the following March, 1757, when the Pitt faction was dis­ missed, and Grenville resigned out of sympathy. The circumstances under which Pitt came to power did not augur well for his success.

The King, who was forced by

lack of an alternative to take Pitt, did not throw his weight and confidence behind the new government.

It is true that

Pitt was popular with the people, as he almost always was. But his political prestige was due not at this time to his popular appeal so much as to the influence of the Princess

p

of Wales and Lady Yarmouth, the mistress of George I I . • Only a few weeks had passed when the King began making new overtures to Newcastle, urging upon him the fact that he

^ Grenville Papers, vol. i, p. 439. 2 Lecky, op. cit.. vol. ii, p. 459.

62

(the King) did not "look upon myself as King whilst I am in the hands of these scoundrels."^

The Duke .of Cumberland

strongly advised the King to dismiss Pitt and Temple before he, the Duke should embark with his troops for the continent. Toward the end of the year, 1756, in December, Admiral Byng came to trial.s

It was during the previous spring that

he allegedly had neglected his duty in failing to attack the French position at Minorca*

There was great popular feeling

against him, and against the Government.

Letters from many

boroughs throughout England came in demanding his death. Newcastle, always susceptible to the most current public whim, promised that Byng should be executed. The trial lasted from December 2 1 , 1756, to January 20, 1757*

The Court Martial found him guilty of neglect of duty,5

but recommended him to the clemency of the King, which they did again on subsequent occasions.

William Pitt and Lord

Temple, in spite of the popular agitation, bravely opposed the execution of Admiral Byng.

But nothing could appease

the public, nor shake the determination of the Government to

Lecky, op. cit.. vol. ii, p. 459. ^ See supra, p. 56. 5 Under the 12th article of~lfar a person could be exe­ cuted even for "an error of judgment only." (Lecky, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 461.)

63 satisfy it, and Byng was shot on March 14, 1757. The Byng affair along with the other factors already men­ tioned finally led the King in April to dismiss first Temple, and shortly thereafter, Pitt.

With their dismission, the

whole Ministry resigned, including Grenville out of deference to Pitt and Temple, and for eleven weeks England was without a government. with France.

This occurred during the lowest ebb of the war The real misfortune was that the political chaos

of this period was not due to division on political issues or principles, but mainly to the personal animosities among the leading statesmen.As soon as the dismissal of Pitt be­ came known, there was an outburst of popular indignation, g "and the nation showed beyond dispute that the statesman who was, beyond all others, the most disliked by the King and by the most considerable of the great nobles, was also the statesman in whom alone the English had real confidence.ff® Royal negotiations were immediately under way with the Duke of Newcastle, who, it was hoped, would be able to restore

1 Lecky, op. cit.. vol. ii, p. 462. 2 Temple wrote to Grenville at this time: "...The free­ dom of the City in a gold box is thought of for Mr. Pitt: the clamour very great.** (Grenville Papers, vol. i, pp. 19192, April 4, 1757.) ® Lecky, op. cit.. vol. ii, p. 462.

64 order and form a government.

Very early in these negotia­

tions it seems that efforts were made to join Newcastle and the Pitt party in the same.administration.

On the 8th of

April, 1757, Lord Temple wrote to Grenville: Offers without end to the Duke of Newcastle, who not only stands his ground, hut I have the utmost reason to think that his union with us is as good as done, in which case Fox must go to the devil, which that it may, is the sincere prayer of your most affectionate brother,upon this very good day, commonly called Good Friday. The union between Pitt and the Duke of Newcastle which Temple mentioned in the above letter was eventually effected. Newcastle, who only a few months before had promised the King that he would never join with Pitt (he was certainly justified in this because of the abuse to which he had been subjected by Pitt), now insisted to the King that he would not take office without him.

On the other hand, Pitt, who previously had

vilified Fox for his compromise with Newcastle, accepted the position of Secretary of State, with Newcastle as Secretary of the Treasury, or Prime Minister. Pitt demanded that he be given absolute power in the con­ duct of the war, while Newcastle was to be limited to the business of the Treasury.

In addition, Pitt got control of

the House, whose assured majority he ^borrowed” from Newcastle. Henry Fox, who had every reason for hating Pitt (which he

^ Grenville Papers, vol. i, pp. 198-95.

65 did), was induced to accept the lucrative office of Pay­ master because of his own poor financial situation, and he immediately proceeded to become a wealthy man*"** These apparent denials of principle in the English poli­ tics of this period serve to show the state of extreme disor­ ganization of the Ihig Party.

The divisions of political

parties upon matters of principle or policy had practically ceased to exist.

England for years had been ruled essential­

ly by a one party system, that of the “Whigs.

And within the

Whig party itself, because there was neither an effective Tory opposition, or a vocal public opinion, there developed a government of faction whose loyalties and divisions were based mostly upon personal issues.

Under these circumstances,

it is not difficult to understand that reform, social or po­ litical, was so little the concern of the statesmen of the middle 18th century. Others in the Ministry included Mr. Legge, who became Chancellor of the Exchequer; Lord Holderness, who became the other Secretary of State along with Pitt; Lord Temple, Privy Seal; and George Grenville was returned to his former position

1 Although the office of Paymaster was not a Cabinet po­ sition, it did receive a large salary. But the real wealth of the office came from the fact that of the subsidies to foreign troops was retained, through custom, by the Paymaster, in addition to the interest obtained from investing the float­ ing balance of the English troops1 salaries.

66 of Treasurer of the Navy, which he held until 1762. When Pitt became virtual Prime Minister, England was fac­ ing a desperate situation.

Confusion and dissention had grown

at home and threatened to divide the country, and gravely af­ fected the morale of the people.

Abroad, the war in Ametica

had been going on for two years, and for almost one year on the continent.

The waging of the war in Europe had become a

matter of politics, and problems of strategy had become sub­ ject to the petty bickerings of faction.

During this great

crisis in Britain1s history there had been up to this time a woeful lack of leadership.

But the coming of William Pitt

into power began to change the scene almost immediately, for he made the winning of the war his primary objective.

That

he was probably the one man in England who could have saved the situation was recognized even by that unrestrained critic of England, Frederick of Prussia, when he said later, "England had long been in labour, but had at last produced a man."^ In January, 1766, England had signed a treaty with Prussia for the defense of Hanover against France. lover of George II.

Frederick was no

But from his standpoint, he saw that he

was being encircled by an alliance of Austria, Saxony, and Russia, and his traditional ally, France, had been weaned away from him and was on the verge of joining the Austrians.

Lecky, op. cit.. vol. ii, pp. 513-514.

67 France later joined the alliance in May, 1756. During the debate on the English treaties with Germany, Pitt had bitterly attacked the proposed arrangements.

New­

castle tried desperately to get him into the Government, but as a last resort Newcastle was forced to dismiss Pitt from office in November, 1755.

The treaties were carried, but the

Government was weakened, for which a great deal of the credit or blame goes to Pitt. But now Pitt was in office again (June, 1757), and he found himself the leader of a policy against which he had persistently fought.

In true Pitt fashion, he made a remark­

able about face, as he had done before and was to do again. That he recognized the desperate state of affairs is one rea­ son for the change; that he was no longer in opposition was another, and in accordance with the emergency he forgot the past in a realistic fashion, going so far as to make an arbi­ trary appropriation of money for the support of the German troops.-*-

-*- Grenville Papers, vol. i, pp. 206-7, Pitt to Grenville, August 11, 1757: ”The calamitous state of affairs has brought several distressful questions on the carpet among the Kingfs friends here. My colleagues have declared for sending a body of English troops to Germany to reinforce the Duke. This, together with other inadmissible measures, has been (thank God) effectually withstood, but such has appeared, to my judge­ ment, the exigency of things since the loss of a battle, and of the Electorate in consequence, that*I have advised a present supply of money, in order to provide for a melancholy and cruel

68

Besides having absolute power over military affairs, Pitt also claimed and exercised authority over the Navy Board, sometimes requiring that they sign his dispatches without their even seeing them.

These instances seem to have been

characteristic of the manner in which Pitt did things. ■Whether they were necessary or not is immaterial, for they accomplished what William Pitt, and all of England most de­ sired, the defeat of France. Although the war lasted until 1763, peace negotiations began very early.

On April 20, 1756, Mrs. Grenville wrote

to Mr. Grenville: ...The news of the town is that there are fresh propo­ sals of peace imported, so advantageous that we shall

interval, till Parliament shall meet, lest the beaten army retired, and still retiring under the Duke, should want the necessary means for a temporary subsistence. In this view a warrant is directed on the million for 100,000 pounds, and one for 20,000 pounds to the Landgrave now a fugitive at Ham­ burgh...lodged at an inn, and without provision for a table. ”Thi3 concession I have adjudged advisable to make upon the grounds of a fatal necessity, to the best of my under­ standing quite irresistible. ”1 wish extremely it could have been in my power to have consulted you, as I intended, before I took the step; but the moment of decision pressed upon me in such a manner as to render that impossible. trust that you and Lord Temple will be of opinion, up­ on fully weighing the whole extensive consideration, that I have not done wrong. My own lights, such as they are, assure me that I have made the only tolerable option, in so violent and urgent a crisis; but be that as it may, your disapproba­ tion will render me unhappy.”

m

accept them.-*Nothing came of the proposals, of course, but more efforts were to follow.

By the time that George III came to the throne

in October, 1760, negotiations were again well under way.

On

October 4, Lord Temple sent to Grenville some wvery important papers” regarding the negotiations for peace with France By this date, Mr. Stanley had gone to Paris, and Monsieur Bussy had come to London for the purpose of working out the prelimi­ naries.

On the 11th of October, Grenville received a letter

from Mr. Jenkinson stating that although nothing as yet had been done toward peace, he suggested that for reasons he could not state he believed that something would transpire toward that end before very long. That the belligerents were apparently sincere in their efforts toward peace is indicated by the fact that they had exchanged official government representatives Just for that purpose.

But that they could not agree even on the funda­

mentals is indicated by the fact that the negotiations dragged on fruitlessly for almost three more years, although - George III was opposed to the war on the continent, as was the

Grenville Papers, vol. ii, p. 157. 2 For a full account of these transactions, see Parlia­ mentary History, vol. xv, pp. 1018 ff.

70 group of friends with which the King surrounded himself*

And

it can be said that the

failure ofPitt to obtain the favor

and support of the King

caused not only his

but eventually the loss

of a great share ofthe spoils of

that war which Pitt had

so ably prosecuted.

fall from power,

As Lecky points

out, the accession of George III ended the nascendancy of Pitt" as well as the ^undisputed supremacy of the Whig Party. And although Pitt fought the war and won unprecedented glory for England, he was not able to make the peace, a peace which vetoed his genius as well as his victories.

CONCLUSION The foregoing chapter has indicated some of the details of Grenvillefs early political life in the decades leading up to the accession of George III.

Grenville began his career

with his brother, Richard, George Lyttelton, and William Pitt, all of whom allied themselves with Lord Cobham.

It was during

this early period that Grenville attached himself to Pitt, al­ most to the extent of becoming his lackey.

It was the indif­

ference of Pitt to the sacrifices Grenville made that later led to their separation.

In this regard, we have seen also

how Grenville1s brother, Lord Temple, staked his political

Lecky, op. cit.. vol. iii, p. 519.

71 career and part of his fortune on William Pitt, and in doing so was for several years alienated from George.

We have seen

illustrated also, the loyalty Grenville displayed toward Pitt and Temple with unfortunate consequences to his own career. But Pitt and Temple were not alone indifferent to Gren­ ville.

Henry Pelham in the forties twice misused Grenville:

once, when he promoted Mr. Legge into the Treasury over Gren­ ville^ head, and again when he gave Mr. Legge the position in the Navy Department which had been promised to Grenville. Later, Grenville did become Treasurer of the Navy, but with­ out the assistance of Pitt or Temple, having been appointed by the Duke of Newcastle in 1754, when the latter was as yet not on very cordial relations with Pitt. At the beginning of the Pitt-Devonshire administration in the fifties, Grenville expected to be appointed to the office of Paymaster, but again he was disappointed, for which Pitt offered some technical but specious excuse. By the time the Pitt-Newcastle administration came into power in 1757, the Pitt-Grenville relations were in a criti­ cal condition, and Grenville sees to have been more aware than ever before of the fact that his political career was his own responsibility, and that he could expect little or no assistance from others. Late in the reign of George II, the Princess of Wales \

at Leicester House began to make overtures to the Pitt-Temple-

72 Grenville group, looking to the formation of a faction which would support her son, the next king of England.

She for a

long time had not heen favored with the beneficence of her father-in-law, George II, and was extremely anxious for the day when her son would be king, so that she, having been de­ nied the title of queen because of her husband1s death in 1750, might through her son realize some of her ambitions for sovereignty.

This faction maintained the closest relations

with the Princess through Lord Bute, who was one of the very few individuals admitted into the presence of the future king, George III. With the death of George II in 1760, the Leicester House faction began to put its plans into motion.

Lord Bute was

de facto Prime Minister several months before he actually took the office in 1762.

Pitt, whose war policy had begun to tire

the new King, resigned when he failed to convince the other ministers that Spain was preparing for war with England. Pittfs resignation left a large gap in the government, but it also permitted the King and Lord Bute to assume a more complete direction of public affairs, a thing for which they had long been planning.

Lord Bute was known as the favorite of George

III, but that he was not the People1s favorite was indicated in those tempestuous months during which he was Prime Minister. The character of Lord Bute and George III are discussed in the following chapter, as is their attempt to restore to

73 the Crown those absolute prerogatives which they believed by right belonged only to the King of England, and should never have been shared by a mere parliament.

i

CHAPTER III THE ACCESSION OF GEORGE III

On October 25, 1760, George III came to the throne of England.

Although his grandfather was an old man, never­

theless, his death was quite unexpected.

Of his grandfa­

t hers death George III said: He was afflicted with no visible or known disease, testified no uneasiness of mind or depression of spir­ its, but showed his usual cheerfulness and alacrity; and from the great success which had attended his late measures, the blaze of constant victory, and the pop­ ularity of his ministry, perhaps there never was a monarch whose death was less desired.* George III came to power while England was in the midst of one of her greatest struggles, and the responsibility which the young sovereign felt at the time of his accession is reflected in his address to the Council when he said: The loss that I and the nation have sustained by the death of the King, my grandfather, would have been severely felt at any time; but coming at so critical a juncture, and so unexpected, it is by many circum­ stances augmented, and the weight now falling on me increased..*2

1 Adolphus, John, History of England, vol. i, p. 9 2 Ibid.. vol. i, p. 10.

75 Here at the beginning of his reign can be seen the evi­ dence of the seriousness of attitude which so characterized the entire reign of George III* George III a serious business.

For being a king was to He had been subjected to the

influence of his designing and ambitious mother too long to look upon it in any other light. Perhaps no king of England since the restoration of Charles II came to the throne amidst such popular enthusiasm. First of all, he was the first English-born king in two gen­ erations. cessors.

Likewise, he differed in character from his prede­ Lecky describes him as follows:

Simple, regular, and abstemious in all his tastes and habits, deeply religious without affectation or enthu­ siasm, ...he exhibited through his whole reign, and in rare perfection, that type of decorous and domestic vir­ tue which the English middle class most highly prize. The proclamation against Immorality with which he began his reign...his suppression of Sunday levees; his dis­ couragement of gambling at Court;...his constant attendance and reverential manner at religious services; his solemn and pious resignation under great private misfortunes, contrasted admirably with the open immorality of his fa­ ther, his grandfather, and his great-grandfather, and with the outrageous licentiousness of his own brothers and of his own sons.1 The education of George III had been almost entirely in jfche hands of his mother, the Princess Dowager.

Because of

the death of her husband in11750, the Princess Dowager was robbed of the privilege-of becoming Queen of England, and

1 Lecky, op. cit.. vol. iii, pp. 12-13.

76 her loss is reflected in the determination she injected into the will of

her son to be a strongking, and in her desire

to exercise power through him* From her position in relation to the rest of the Court, the Princess Dowager was singularly lacking in the qualifi­ cations necessary to tutor a monarch, and to introduce him to the problems of statecraft.

Because George II had been con­

stantly jealous and suspicious of the Princess, the followers of the King were reluctant to endanger his pleasure by having any connection with her.

Under these circumstances, prior

to his accession George III was largely isolated from Court life. ...the young prince was wholly unacquainted with the sen­ timents and manners of those who formed his grandfather*s court. This neglect extended even to the royal family; the Duke of Cumberland and Princess Amelia shewed no marks of attention and respect to the Heir Apparent and his mo­ ther .i It was in this isolated situation that George III was taught the duties of a king.

And what he was taught he seems

to have learned well, for he spent his entire reign in an ef­ fort to recoup the royal prerogatives which had been lost un­ der his predecessors. In addition to the influence of his mother, George*s at­ titudes toward monarchy were also shaped by a polished but

1 Adolphus, op. cit.. vol. i, p. 2.

77 politically inexperienced member of the Tory party, Lord Bute*

Lord Bute had little knowledge of politics, either of

policy or tactics, but had so thoroughly succeeded in in­ gratiating himself with the Princess Dowager, that he was given free access to the prince* It had already been whispered, that the assiduity of Lord, Bute at Leicester House, and his still more fre­ quent attendance in the gardens at Kew and Carlton House, were less addressed to the Prince of Wales than to his mother. The eagerness of the Pages of the Back­ stairs to let her know whenever Lord Bute arrived... contributed to dispell the ideas that had been conceived of the rigour of her widowhood. On the other hand, the favoured personage, naturally ostentatious of his per­ son, and of haughty carriage, seemed by no means desir­ ous of concealing his conquest* His bows grew more the­ atric, his graces contracted more meaning, and the beauty of his legs' were constantly displayed 5in the eyes of the poor captivated Princess.! Lord Butefs official position in the royal household was Groom of the Stole, an office which gave him ready ac-^ cess to the ear of the prince.

Later, by virtue of his

position, and by c u s to m , Lord Bute automatically became a member of the Privy Council.

Bute was ambitious not only

for himself, but for the young king as well.

The discon­

nection of George III from” the Court and personnel of his grandfather provided Lord Bute with an opportunity to in­ still in the prince a strong will to power for himself, a nd for the Tory party.

And it was partly due to the tu-

1 Walpole, George II. vol. ii, pp. 204-05

78 itelage of Lord Bute that George conceived those ideas of mon^r archy which were to bring him and his people so much unhap­ piness and misfortune.

Lecky indicated Bute*s political ideas

when he writes: Lord Bute had "extreme views of the legitimate powers of royalty...," and he "strengthened in his (Georgefs) mind those plans for the emancipation of the royal authority which George III pursued steadily throughout his whole life.1 It was Lord Bute who instructed George from the manu­ script of the yet unpublished Commentaries of Blackstone, in which it was maintained that the king "was not only the chief, but properly the sole magistrate of the nation.

It is no

wonder, then, that George, devoid of a knowledge of court practice^ unaware of the true nature of parliamentary con­ trol, and imbued with an extreme sense of the importance of his position, should have launched so quickly upon a new pol­ icy in government. It is true that the position of the English king at the time in which Lecky wrote was considerably different from wh&t it was in 1760.

As Lecky .says, King George III was the

j

last English sovereign "to impose his individual opinion upon the nation, and in a great degree succeeding in the at-

1 Lecky, op. cit^_. vol. _iii, p. 12. 2

Blackstone, Commentaries, in Adolphus, op. cit., vol..;!, p. 12.

79 t e m p t . N e v e r t h e l e s s , there was ample indication long be­ fore 1760 of the rising power of parliament*2

The innocu­

ous relation to the government of the first two Georges, and the shrewd political nature of Robert Walpole, had seriously, and in effect, permanently, undermined the concept of divine right, and even monarchical ascendancy*

Lecky maintains that

this ideal was achieved "only slightly11 by "legislation," partly from a "series of historical facts growing out of the accession of the House of Hanover..*and partly from the steady subsequent growth of the popular element in the Constitution*"5 In place of monarchical authority there had developed dur­ ing the 18th century a system of ministerial ascendancy, in which the-Ring was no longer responsible for public affairs, nor even for the policy of the government. the king had become theoretically powerless*

In party politics, And because he

lacked a real connection with party politics, he could hard­ ly be in a position to direct policy.

One source describes

the situation in the following paragraph: If then he (the King) regards himself as personally res­ ponsible for the policy of the nation, and if he be a man of strong, conscientious political convictions, his posi­ tion will soon become intolerable...He will be in the po-

1 Lecky, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 11. ^ See supra, chapter I. 5 Lecky, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 9.

80 sition of an iremovable Prime Minister, compelled to car­ ry out a policy which he detests, and to select his sub­ ordinates from among -his opponents, A more painful, a more insecure, a more fatally false position could hard­ ly be conceived, but it must be that of every sovereign who in a constitutional monarchy is an active party in politics. If the collision be public, it may shake the monarchy to its basis. If it be confined to the precincts of the council-room, it is only a little less dangerous. A secret influence habitually is sure to be suspected, .to be exaggerated, and to be misrepresented. The national policy will almost inevitably be weakened when the confi-. dence of the sovereign is withheld from the ministers, and when he Is perpetually interfering with his conduct. Court intrigues, secret and unofficial advisers, respon­ sible ministers, surrendering their real convictions in deference to the wishes of an irresponsible, are the na­ tural resultsj and even if the firmness of the minister succeeds in averting them, it is no small evil that the duty of discussing in detail every political step with the sovereign should be added to the almost overwhelming burden which already rests upon parliamentary statesmen.1 Apparently, it was with complete ignorance of the political situation, or with a strong-willed determination to circum­ vent it, that George III began to initiate, with the help of lord Bute, his new policies.

But because of his inability or

refusal to recognize the facts, George III "Inflicted.more profound and enduring injuries upon his country than any 2 other modern English sovereign." Had the policy which George III was about to undertake been placed under the direction of any other man than Lord Bute, there is reason to believe that it would have met with

1 Lec&y, op. cit.. vol. iii, p. 8.

2 Ibid.. vol. ill, p. 14.

81 much more success than it did,. The policy was to break the power of the ministry, and to secure "the independence of the crown, by a moderate exertion pf constitutional prerogative. "**Walpole maintains that "no doubt can be entertained but a plan had been early formed of carrying~the prerogative to very uno

usual h e i g h t s . A d o l p h u s holds that although the "plan it­ self was well conceived, and necessary," Lord Bute was not g suited for the task. Although opposition to the new policy did not break out immediately, the suspicion of Lord Bute’s influence was evident very early, and was expressed in a notice placed at the Boyal Exchange in London which read, "No Petticoat Govern-

^ Adolphus, op. cit., vol. i, p. 13, 2 Walpole, Memoirs of George III. vol. i, p. 14. 3 "He was not connected, either by blood or by familiar intercourse, with the leading families of England; he was not versed in the arts of popularity, nor used to the struggles of parliamentary opposition; and his manners were cold, reserved, and unconciliating. He had not, as a measure preparatory to the assumption of power, secured an interest in either house of parliament, or among the people. Prejudices were easily excited against him as a native of Scotland; for it is tobe .recollected, that only fifteen years had elapsed since are­ bellion begun in that country, had raged in the very heart of England, and he could only oppose to a popular and trium­ phant administration and a long established system, such friends as hope and interest might supple, and the personal esteem of the King, which was rendered less valuable by the odium attached to the name of the favourite."-(Adolphus, op. cit.. vol. i, p. 13.)

82 ment: no Scotch Favourite."

1

Thus a policy which might actu**

ally have been the conscientious objective of the king, was attributed to the very unpopular Bute.

And even ifjBute had

been an able politician, it is doubtful, under the circum­ stances, whether or not the new policy would have been suc­ cessful* The actual mechanics of carrying out the policy were equally unwise, and eventually brought disaster*

By a policy

of "divided administration," that is, of trying to separate subordinate government officials from their leaders, and mak­ ing then dependent upon the Grown, Lord Bute and the King hoped to establish a "Crown influence***in Parliament as well as a ministerial influence*..," by which any ministry opposed o to the king could be removed. In addition to the policy of "divided administrations," the King planned to surround himself with a group of suppor­ ters who would be unaffected by party lines*

The method of

obtaining this support was through crown and council "patron­ age," a method which proved to have no want of applicants, but which also proved to be very expensive.

The Tories, of

course, long-out of power, were quick to support the policy

1 Walpole, Memoirs of George III* vol. i, pp. 13-14. 2 Lecky. op. cit., vol. iii, p. 21.

85 of the king where there was an opportunity of personal or party advantage*

Furthermore, because the Whig party it­

self was torn by division, the king hoped that he would be able to find at least one portion of its membership which, for any reason whatever, would support the kingfs measures* Another factor in the divide and rule policy was that which Lecky has called ”divided cabinets*” 1

Lecky ex­

plains that even by 1760 it wa« customary for the minister of a given cabinet to belong to the same party*

But politi­

cal parties were anathema to ^eorge III, and it was decided that he could strike a blow at cabinet unity and political parties at the same time simply by insisting that cabinets should be made up from members of both parties*

In this

system George would hold the balance of power* About this time (1761) there appeared a pamphlet en­ titled, ”Seasonable Hints from an Honest Man on the New Reign and the New Parliament*”

Its author was believed to

have been Lord Bath who had so vigorously opposed Robert p Walpole*~ The pamphlet praised the King for surrounding himself with men who were not unduly influenced by party lines, and continued by saying that now was the time to remove from government that ”cabal” which had expropriated

* Ibid* * vol* iii, p* 2 1 ff. ^ See Lecky, oj>* cit*, vol* i.

the King fs constitutional power*

He went on to predict that-

"With the destruction of oligarchical powers the reign of corruption would terminate, and undue influence in Parliament was never likely to he revivedi"^

No better summary of the

position of that segment of the old conservative Tory party could be made.

It failed to recognize trends, and mistook

constitutional progress for an oligarchical revolution.

Un­

fortunately for England and for the new king himself, he held the dame ground, and placed himself at the head of the group which tried to restore a situation which no longer had a basis for existence* Apart from the method which the King employed to gain ascendancy, which in itself was a failure as far as good government is concerned, the policies which he attempted to force his various ministers to carry out were likewise dis­ astrous.

Although George held high personal standards, he,

nevertheless, was not opposed to resorting to questionable methods if they were necessary.

The corruption of the Whig

ministries during the reign of George II had long been at­ tacked by members of the Tory party, especially during the Walpole administration.

But the corruption of the rejuven­

ated Tories exceeded even that of the Whigs.

For George III

sponsored ministers who were "guilty of an amount... of cor-

1 Lecky, oj>. cit.. vol. iii, p. 83.

85 ruption which is probably unequalled in the parliamentary history of England."^

In spite of the fact that the annual .

income of the Crown was almost 1,000,000 pounds per annum. and the Court was "parsimonious to a fault," George managed to accumulate a debt of well oirer 3,000,000 pounds during his reign,^

a great share of which was believed to have

been used in buying parliamentary support. Besides the great debt ^nto which he dragged his country, George III opposed any modification in the trade laws which were ruining Irish commerce;

he opposed Catholic emancipa­

tion and the endowment of the Catholic Church against the advice of statesmen who felt that these measures would al­ leviate the unfortunate social situation; he opposed the promotion of Catholics to high army offices, and otherwise discriminated against men who were giving their lives In *: his service in the war with France.

In addition to the pol­

icies he carried out at home and on the continent, the col­ onial policies of ^eorge III brought upon England the hatred of Georgefs American subjects, and led to their independence. These are only a few of his unfortunate mistakes.

But through­

out his entire reign, George»s Influence was felt, "...some-

3* Lecky, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 14. ^ May*s Constitutional History, vol. i, p. 206, in Lecky, op. cit.. vol. iii. p. 15.

86 times in postponing inevitably measures of justice and re­ form, sometimes sowing the seeds of enduring evil.If^ This was the King, and this was the system under which Grenville three years later was to become Prime Minister. From all appearances, Grenville was chosen for the office more for his record of docility than for his capacity for statesmanship.

After Bute’s resignation it was the letter’s

plan to continue in public affairs through his position of Court favorite, and through what he hoped would be an amen­ able Prime Minister, George Grenville.

But this design was

a tenuous one from the very beginning, for the public still suspected, and Grenville was surprisingly independent.

1 Lecky, op. cit.. vol. iii, p. 16.

CHAPTER IV GRENVILLE UNDER GEORGE III— FROM ACCESSION TO PRIME MINISTERSHIP

It was but very shortly after the accession of George III that changes in the personnel of the Government began to take place*

By this time Grenville had definitely begun to

break away from Pitt.

On February 11, 1761, Grenville was

notified by Lord Bute (whose official position was still only Groom of the Stole) that he had been appointed to the Cabinet, although he was to retain his office as Treasurer of the Navy (not a cabinet position).

By late March, Lord

Bute became officially what he had been since the accession of George III, Secretary of State, and Mr. Jenkinson became his Under Secretary, partly through the influence of Gren­ ville.

With these changes and others one can begin to see

a return to a Tory Ministry.

Lord Barrington and Charles

Townshend joined the government, the former becoming Chan­ cellor of the Exchequer. In accordance with an. act of Parliament, a general elec­ tion was held in the spring of 1761 which has been called one of the most corrupt in English history.

The Treasury

88 issued large amounts of money, and the King actively named candidates.

Boroughs which formerly had been at the disposal

of the ministry !twere now treated as solely at the disposal of the Crown. Thus the Tories, who for years had been the champions of political morality against the corruption of the Whigs, inaugurated their regime. Almost as soon as George III came to the throne, a move­ ment got under way against Pittfs war policy.

The war was

becoming very costly, from a financial standpoint at least. Some maintained that there was nothing left for England to gain in the struggle.

There was also the growing strength

in Parliament of the anti-war Tories, among whom were the Duke of Newcastle and Lord Hardwicke.

But the expedition

against Belleisle had cost a great number of men, which Pitt wanted to avenge before he would consider a peace. During the spring of 1761 peace negotiations continued. On the 21st of May, Jenkinson, Lord Bute*s Under Secretary, wrote to Grenville that discussion was under way for a peace based on uti possidetis, 'and on June 25th he wrote that peace was expected within a fortnight.

One month later, the Coun­

cil sent an ultimaturn to France (after having considered the French counter-proposals demanding Newfoundland fishery

1 Lecky,

0 £.

cit.. vol. iii, p. 28.

89 rights, proposals which thoroughly disgusted Lord Bute), deny­ ing her right to the Newfoundland fisheries.

It was at this

point that the Spanish government first entered the controversy, and in the British ultimatum mentioned above, Spain was also attacked for attempting to present demands through a nation l with whom England was at war. By the end of July, it was apparent that the Cabinet was unanimous in the belief that moderation should be exercised in regard to France and the peace.

But the Cabinet likewise

felt that these proposals should be set forth without equivo­ cation.

Pitt apparently believed that the French would accept

them, for Jenkinson wrote to Grenville oh July 28th that Pitt felt that the war was nearly over.

Lord Bute, however, was

not of the same opinion. It was during the summer of 1761 that the Spanish Govern­ ment had projected itself into the affair, and Pitt was quick to suspect the possibility of a Franco-Spanish Alliance.

The

Alliance actually took place on the 15th of August, 1761. Spain had already begun to rearm, and Pitt feared that she would declare war as soon as she was militarily prepared, and as soon as a number of richly-laden treasure ships arrived safely from Peru and Mexico.

Early in August the French

counter-ultimatum had been received which insisted on the

For these negotiations see Parliamentary History, vol. xv, pp. 1018 ff.

90 fishing rights, at which time Jehkinson wrote to Grenville that the Duke of Newcastle begged the Cabinet not to lose sight of peace, and stated that MMr. Pitt is almost as un­ willing” to lose sight of it as Newcastle was*

Later in this

letter he stated that if the negotiations failed it would be because of Butefs insistence upon forcing his demands upon France.

Now it seems the roles of Lord Bute and Pitt were

reversed.

Pitt wavered,^ while Lord Bute set forth and insist­

ed upon certain sine qua non proposals.

But before very long

Pitt was to resume his adamant position and Lord Bute was to become the chief exponent of peace. By October, Pitt was sure that war with Spain was inevi­ table, and on the 2nd of the month asked that the Council withdraw the English Ambassador at Madrid and declare war upon Spain.

Since there was no tangible evidence that Spain

had designs upon the British, any such declaration of war would be regarded by the public and the rest of the world as an act of aggression.

In the Council meeting of this day,

Pitt tried vainly to convince the Cabinet that Spain* s

See Jenkinson to Grenville, July 14, 1761. t!Pitt and everyone seems to me not to knpw what to do.n But l!Lord Bute had written a very firm letter to the Duke of Bedford (Ambassador to France) and has declared in it that he will not consent to a peace which shall leave to the French any even civil possession on the shores of Newfoundland.” (Gren­ ville Papers, vol. i, p. 375.

91 preparations were directed against England.

The Cabinet re­

jected his demands, and Pitt, and later Temple, resigned, leaving the government of England and the problems of war and peace in the hands of the inexperienced Lord Bute.

For, with

Pitt went the "soul of the Administration. On the very day that Pitt resigned, Lord Bute began sug­ gesting changes in the Government. London to see the King.

Grenville was ordered to

The next day Grenville set out for

London, and on the way he met his brother, Lord Temple, who was Just returning from the city.

It was there in an inform­

al setting that Lord Temple told Grenville that no one except him (Temple) and Pitt need feel obligated to resign; that he was going to urge that their brother, James, remain in office, for the time being at any rate.

One cannot help wondering

at this advice in the light of subsequent events, for it marks the beginning of the final break between Grenville and his brothers. "When Grenville arrived in London he was urged by Lord Bute to accept the Seals of the Secretary of State, the posi­ tion left vacant by the resignation of Pitt.

Under ordinary

circumstances Grenville would probably have accepted.

But

here again his political career was linked so closely with that of Pitt that he found himself in the embarrassing posi­

1 Lecky, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 35.

92 tion of filling the vacancy left by his closest political friend.

Grenville pressed upon Lord Bute the delicacy of his

situation, and in spite of every argument Lord Bute and the King could present, he ITabsolutely declined..

And at the

recommendation of Grenville, Lord Egremont was offered the position, which he accepted. In the spring of this year, 1761, Grenville had expressed his desire to the King of becoming Speaker of the House of Comp mons. Now again in the fall of the same year, Speaker Onslow expressed his intention to resign, and Grenville pressed his desires.

But the King had other plans, and urged upon Gren­

ville that Mthough he had declined the Seals of Secretary of 3 State, he should give up the thoughts of being Speaker...17 The King wished fffor the good of his Government that Mr. Gren­ ville should carry on His Majesty1s business in the House of

•^•Grenville Papers, vol. i, p. 411. 2See diary entry by Grenville, Grenville Papers, vol. i, pp. 411-14: ,fIn the conversation Mr. Grenville had with the King in the spring, 1761, upon the subject of being Speaker, the King repeatedly told him he wished to see him in another 'situation, and that His Majesty only lent him to the public, trusting that whenever the King should think his service re­ quired it, Mr. Grenville should leave the chair. Mr. Grenville assured His Majesty he would, and related these particulars to Lord Temple and Mr. Pitt.11 ^Grenville Papers, vol. i, p. 411. The Speaker of the House of Commons was at that time, and is now, largely a par-' Vliamentarian, and was not directly involved in the politics of the House# nor in the policies of the Government. He was

93 i Commons.”

Grenville protested that he had no following in

the House of Commons, and pointed out to the King ”the danger His Majesty ran of being obliged to abandon a faithful servant whom he would leave in the midst of his enemies, and by that means deprive him of the power of being useful to him.”

This

last turned out to be a very accurate prediction of what ac­ tually was to happen.

For only a few months later when the

peace with France was about to be considered by Parliament, Grenville was ”abandoned” by the King in order that Mr. Henry Fox might replace him as leader of the Commons for the purpose of pushing the peace through Parliament. Lord Bute countered all of Grenville1s objections success­ fully, and Grenville obeyed the King’s commands, retaining his position as Treasurer of the Navy and Cabinet Councillor.^

mainly a ”referee”, and thus did not function as part of the Ministry. ^ The leader of the King’s business in the House of Commons was much more similar to the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives than was the Speaker of the House of Commons. The leader of the Commons was the Government’s representative there, and as such he had at his disposal a considerable amount of patronage which was used to get the measures of the Govern­ ment through the House. s Lord Bute, to obviate these objections,sent a letter to Mr. Grenville by Mr. Elliot, "laying down the plan of his fu­ ture conduct, giving Mr. Grenville the fullest assurances of the King’s support of him through all difficulties, saying the King put the whole upon it; ’that Mr. Grenville’s honour was the King’s honour, his disgrace would be the King’s dis­ grace.’” This passage is taken from a narrative in Mrs.

The fact that Grenville should have been appointed to lead the House of Commons in spite of the intelligent objec­ tions Grenville presented, seems to suggest the reason itself* Grenville had a record of working with those of his political friends, a record verified by the fact that more than once he had resigned or refused office merely out of deference to them*

He was a follower who could be trusted to do what was

expected of him.

He had never been overly aggressive, nor

had he made his friends uncomfortable by offering any very harmful opposition.

In other words, Grenville was one who

could be trusted with what was potentially a very powerful position, but a position which the King and Lord Bute found necessary to keep under their own control.

It was probably

hoped that Grenville would quietly carry out the wishes of Bute and the King whether he personally agreed with them or-not. Grenville obviously did not want the position.

He realized

his own inadequacy as a leader of the Commons, and was not afraid to tell the King so.

In this regard it can be said

that Grenville was not a typical office hunter, although he did, like most men of his time, believe that experience should

GrenvilleTs handwriting which ends with the date, November 9th, 1761. An introductory note suggests that the whole narrative ^appears to have been written at a subsequent time.” ( Gren­ ville Papers, vol. i, pp. 409 ff.)

95 be a strong factor in the succession to higher offices. It is just as obvious that Grenville much more desired* and was much better prepared to be, Speaker of the House of Commons.

He was essentially a lawyer, and loved the detail

of his profession.

Pitt had once said that he was one of

the most able parliamentarians in the House.

Grenville was

definitely of a legalistic nature, a characteristic which is important in the profession in which he desired to serve, but a characteristic which was not so well suited to the political situation into which he was forced.

Grenville,

no doubt, could have been happy as Speaker of the House. But in this and subsequent years the turn of events imposed upon him duties and obligations which he did not have the capacity to fulfill successfully.

And, to say the least,

he himself was a most unhappy man beeause he did not have the confidence and support of those who insisted upon push­ ing him into positions which he opposed, and in which he certainly did not belong. Shortly after Grenville accepted the leadership of the House of Commons, the disaffection of Pitt and his brothers came into the open.

Throughout the entire negotiation just

described, Pitt maintained a remarkable indifference to Grenville1s situation, both in regard to the Seals and the Speaker ship v*- As was his custom, Grenville continued to

^ Grenville Papers,, vol. i, p. 414.

96 visit his brother Lord Temple until the latter finally refused to see him any more, and this without any explanation.

In the

meantime his other brother, James, had resigned, and he too, treated Grenville rather shabbily.

Later at a meeting of the

Privy Councillors at Whitehall, "Mr. Grenville seeing Lord Temple, asked him how he did; but Lord Temple turned his back upon him."

This was the price Grenville had to pay for obey­

ing the Kingfs commands, commands which he much rather would have declined.

From Grenville1s standpoint, he had always

been faithful to Pitt and his brothers, but the latter, al­ though they had recommended Grenvillefs action, not only re­ fused to support him politically, but brought their political differences into their personal relationships. ; It was at this time that an interesting event took place \¥hich indicated the attitude of the people toward Pitt, as opposed to the Government.

On the 9th of November, George III

and his bride of two months went to dine with the Lord Mayor at Guildhall.

It was the first time that the King and the

Queen had visited the city together.

This particular incident

arose over Mr. Pittas and Lord Temple1s entering the proces­ sion to Guildhall.

Pitt himself was undecided whether it

would be proper for him to attend in view of his relation to

^ Grenville Papers, vol. i, p. 415.

97 the Government and the King.

But he was advised by a friend

of his, Alderman William Beckford, that he should do so,'*’ Afterwards, Pitt regretted his going and said he did it against his better judgment. together in the same coach.

But he and Lord Temple rode While the King and the Queen

-were received with indifference”, and Lord Bute ”was asp

sailed everywhere with hisses and execrations,”

at the same

time ”A11 the enthusiasm of the populace was centered in Mr. Pitt, who was *honoured with the most hearty acclamations of people of all ranks,fo and so great was the feeling in his favour, that the mob clung about every part of the vehicle, hung about the wheels, hugged his footman, and even kissed his horses.”4

^ William Beckford to Mr. Pitt, November 6, 1761: ”Men*s hopes and fears are strangely agitated at this critical junc­ ture; but all agree universally, that you ought to make your appearance at Guildhall on Monday next with Lord Temple; and, upon the maturest reflection, I am clear you ought not to re­ fuse this favour to those who are so sincerely your friends. ”As you cannot say any one prediction of mine has proved false, so I hope you will give me an opportunity of being de­ clared a true prophet in the present case...” (Chatham Cor­ respondence . vol. ii, p. 165.) 2 Albemarle, George, Memoirs of the Marquis of Rocking­ ham a vol. i, p. 70. ® Gentleman1s Magazine. in ibid., yol. i, p. 70. 4 From Annual Register. 1761, p. 257, in ibid., vol. i, p. 70.

98 Although Pitt was met with great popular acclaim, the incident did nothing to help his cause with the King and the Government.

Grenville, in his account of the incident, throws

a different light upon the character of Alderman Beckford: Mobs were hired by Alderman Beckford, and posted in different parts, to huzza and-clap them as they passed along the streets; they were clapped as they came into the Hall; and when they went out, and during the pro­ cession, an acclamation was contrived of these hirelings just before the balcony where the King and Queen were sitting...as the chariot passed by.1 Since Grenville apparently wrote the account of the event some time later, it is possible he may have written into it what was merely a rumor passed around among the Government party.

For even if the applause for Pitt was paid for and

ungenuine in this case, it was certainly not so in the days that followed, for his popularity with the people regained its ascendancy in spite of the efforts of the King and the Government.^

Grenville Papers, vol. i, p. 415. 2 As was customary upon the retirement of high government officials, Pitt was offered some kind of a reward for his services to the Crown. He was offered a sinecure office which he refused, but did accept the peerage for his wife, and a pension of SOOOpounds a year for three lives. (Lecky, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 36.) Contrary to custom these arrangements were announced in the same Gazette that announced his resignation, and for a short time,there was a strong feeling of indignation against Pitt, but the feeling was only temporary, and when the predictions Pitt had. made with regard to Spain came to pass, he again was favored with popular esteem.

99 By November of 1761* Pittfs insight into the designs of the Spanish Government against England was recognized by Lord Bute* and on the 12th of November he wrote to Grenville of the proposed move to have all the npaperstf dealing with the Spanish question brought before Parliament.1

Things were com­

ing rapidly to a head* and about a month later* on December 51* 1761, England declared war on Spain* and about the same time the latter invaded Portugal* revealing Mone of the secret motives of Spanish policy*” the breaking off of the relations between England and Portugal, when Portugal refused to accede to these demands.

2

It was not until April of the following year* 1762* that a ”supply of credit bill” was ready to be laid before Parlia­ ment for the purpose of aiding the beseiged Portugese.

Gren­

ville, whose duty it was to present the bill to the House of Commons, seems to have felt that he was getting his hands dirty* and in a letter to Lord Bute on April 29th, he express­ ed his reluctance for the task* and that he was now so in­ volved only in obedience to the Kingfs commands.

It was not

nfrom any wish or eagerness of my own to intermeddle in this

1 These papers may be found in Parliamentary History, vol. xv* pp. 1130-1207. 2 Lecky, op». cit.. vol. iii* p. 30.

or any other "business of this kind**.11 The task was dis­ tasteful to Grenville because, to the already huge public debt was to be added another large sum against which there would no doubt be opposition.

In the same letter, Grenville

conscientiously "thought it right to particularize the gen­ eral motives for this measure, and to point out strongly the limitation of the expense, both which are necessary from the objections which have been industriously raised, and which I know have made a great deal of impression."^

In

his diary Grenville maintains that when the bill appropriat­ ing two million pounds was to be brought in in May, he told the King and everyone else that one million was enough, fear­ ing that the former figure would threaten the defeat of a Government measure.

2

He goes on further to say that the Trea­

sury Board refused to back the Duke of Newcastle (first Lord of the Treasury) in regard to the two million credit, and at this time, May 86, he, Newcastle, "thought it expedient to 3 resign." The position of Newcastle had been affected also by the fact that he refused to withdraw the subsidy to the Prussian King.

I Grenville Papers, vol. i, pp. 440-41. S Ibid.. vol. i, p. 449. S Ibid., vol. i, p. 449.

101

The resignation of the Duke of Newcastle brought about what the King and Lord Bute had long waited for, that was, the complete ascendancy of Butefs party.

Lord Bute became in name

what he had been since Pittfs resignation, the head of the Ministry.

But very shortly the King and Lord Bute began to

have trouble with the obstreperous Grenville.

It seems that,

although he makes no mention of it in his diary, nor is there any notice of it in his correspondence, Grenville was offered the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer.

At that time, the

office of Chancellor of the Exchequer was a subordinate posi­ tion, and not of Cabinet rank.

And George III seems to have

summed up Grenville’s position when he wrote to Lord Bute: "I don’t doubt but if he (Grenville) could he would have some 1 office where he could in his opinion figure more...0 than as Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The King’s true conception

of Grenville’s capacities at this time was expressed In this same letter when he wrote: .. .he is tfery far out If he things himself capable for a post where either decision of activity are necessary; for I never yet met with a man more doubtful or dillitory; we must not let slip what we had lately in our eye, the plac3L&g him in the Admiralty, there he could be easily spurred on, and would be out of the way...s

■** Sedgwick, Romney, ed., Letters of George III to Lord Bute. dated "middle of May", p. 105. 2 Ibid.. p. 105.

A few days after this letter was written, Grenville was offered the Seals which Lord Bute had held as Secretary of State, only to have the propriety of this step questioned immediately by Lord Bute himself.

Lord Egremont, who had

been the other Secretary of State since October, 1761, was a relative of Grenville1s.

On the 22nd of May, 1762, Bute

wrote to Grenville explaining that it would not be wise to have two "brothers11 holding these offices concurrently, but that he, Lord Bute, would suggest to Lord Egremont that he exchange with Lord Halifax the position the latter then held as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, thus leaving a vacancy for Grenville.

But Grenville insisted that he would have nothing

to do with this affront to his good friend, Lord Egremont, and the latter was not approached about the matter.

But

finally on the 28th of May, after all this tortuous negotia­ tion in an effort to get Grenville out of the way, he was appointed Secretary of State.

In June (1762), Lord Halifax

became First Lord of the Admiralty. Grenville, although Secretary of State for the Northern Department

was still the party chore boy.

He was given the

task of preparing the draft of the KingTs Speech which was to

"The Secretary for the Northern Department dealt with the northern powers, that for the Southern with other foreign states, with Ireland, the colonies, and the home sphere." (C. Grant Robertson, England Under the Hanoverians. p. 176.)

103 close the session of Parliament* Bute wrote to Grenville:

On May 30th (1762), Lord

”1 am greatly pleased with your

draft...” and then suggested several corrections which might he made.^

Grenville was apt in the mechanics of speech-writ­

ing, was virtually Lord Butefs steongrapher. The immediate objective of the Bute party was to bring about the conclusion of a peace.

Only a few months before,

in a letter from Jenkinson to Grenville, the former had said that if the peace efforts at that time failed it would be because of the insistence of Lord Bute that all of England’s demands should be met.

But during the summer of 1762 the

situation changed rapidly, and Lord Bute became the chief agitator (along with his secret negotiator, the Duke of Bed­ ford) for peace at any price. As early as July of this year, Bute was carrying on sec­ ret negotiations for peace through the Sardinian Ambassador, p Count Viri. The main object of the negotiations seems to have been to get France to agree with England to withdraw

Compare this letter, Grenville Papers, vol. i, p. 454, with Parliamentary History, vol. xv, pp. 1227-1229. In the latter is included the final draft of the King’s Speech as it was given. Note how many of Bute’s suggestions were carried into the final draft. p

See Grenville Papers, vol. 1, p. 462, Egremont to Gren­ ville, July 3, 1762.

104 from the conflict whether peace between Prussia and Austria came or not*

In preparing the dispatch of instructions to be

sent to the English Ambassador to Prussia, Mr* A* Mitchell, Grenville wanted to insist that both England and France with­ draw their troops from the continent, and that this decision be placed beyond the power of bargaining or alteration by either Mr. Mitchell or the Duke of Bedford, who was soon to depart for Paris. It can well be understood that the reaction of Frederick of Prussia to England’s intention to withdraw from the strug­ gle was one through which he would naturally seek to discredit Bute’s Administration, If not to cause its downfall.^

How much

’’The extreme hatred of the King of Prussia towards Lord Bute took its rise from his determination to withdraw the An­ nual Subsidy, an announcement to that effect having been made in a very masterly dispatch from Lord Bute to Mr. Mitchell, on Jhe -26th of May, for which see Mitchell Memoirs and Papers, vol. ii. Lord Bute thus compares the present state of Prussia with that of Great Britain: ’We have a very powerful addition­ al enemy to contend with. His Prussian Majesty has a new and very powerful friend. The weight of Spain is thrown into our opposite scale: that of-Russia and Sweden, too, is taken out of his. The King of Prussia had Pomerania and Brandenburg to defend, besides Saxony and Silesia: the two former are no longer in danger. We had, on our part, a most extensive land war in Germany: we must now provide for another in Portugal.’ ”It seems from the...copy of a letter from the King of Prussia to his Ministers, Knyphausen and Michell, that they had orders to encourage the opposition to Lord Bute, and to promot e the annoyance and destruction of his Administration, to the ex­ tent of their power, and no doubt that much of the personal abuse which was so liberally bestowed upon Lord Bute was pur­ chased by Prussian gold.” (Taken from a note written by the editor, Grenville Papers. vol. i, p. 467.)

105 credit for the downfall of Lord Bute must he given to Freder­ ick is pretty much a matter for conjecture.

But in any case,

whatever factors were responsible, the end was eventually achieved. Throughout the summer of 1762, Grenville struggled with Lord Bute over the peace terms in which Lord Bute tended to relax the demands of England, lest the negotiations should be broken off.^

By October, Grenville explains in his diary, the

differences between Lord Bute and himself *feave ground to his enemies to work with greater success than they had hitherto 2

done.”

For it was during the first week of this month that

negotiations between Lord Bute and Mr. Fox got under way, the latter of whom was to replace Grenville as leader of the Com­ mons. The Duke of Bedford, who by September was well under way in his negotiations in France, had begun to take matters pretty much into his own hands.

On September 26, Lord Egremont %rote

to Grenville, (enclosing a dispatch from the Duke of Bedford). ...you will see that the headstrong silly wretch (bedford) has already given up two or three points in his conversa­ tion with Choiseul, and that his design was to have signed

^ !tMr. Grenville represented strongly against giving up Guadaloupe and Santa Lucia, wanted to have an equivalent asked for Guadaloupe, and insisted and prevailed to have a compensa­ tion for the Havannah.” (Grenville Papers, vol. i, p. 540.) S Ibid.. vol. i, p. 450.)

106 without any communication here*'*' That Bedford seems to have had at least the tacit support of Bute is indicated in the same letter when Egremont says: I have been with Lord Bute this morning, and had much talk with him, some I did not like, but I have not given way in anything; nor shall in the attack I expect from the superior, who I am to see after the Drawing-room.^ Bedford, during his entire stay in France, worked for the acceptance by the British Government of all or most of the French demands*

He opposed the destruction of the French fleet,

and urged that the French be given the right to fish off the coast of Newfoundland, in effect, the "unqualified acceptance of every one of the French demands...11 In October Lord Egremont received further despatches from Bedford, about which Egremont wrote to Grenville: I do not suppose that there ever existed such a speci­ men of falsehood, inconsistency, insolence, &., , &., as these papers exhibit; and I do not almost see how the negotiation can proceed: the Duke of Bedford is in consternation himself about it...every article almost is altered in a pro .let sent from the Duke of Choiseul to the Duke of Bedford; and all the points tant grands que petits varied from what was settled and agreed as to France. As to Spain, the Havannah, by name promised to

1 Grenville Papers, vol. i, p. 475, and Bedfdrd Corres pondence* vol. iii, pp. 101 ff. ^ Grenville Papers. vol. i, p. 475. s Lecky. op. cit. . vol. iii, p. 43.

107 be delivered up, without compensation to England.. The ”consternation” of the Duke of Bedford was probably equalled by that of the Cabinet.at home, because f!a majority of the cabinet began to be alarmed by the extent of the re­ sponsibility which they had incurred by their instructions to the Duke of Bedford; and they readily acceded to a proposal of Lord Egremontfs...that when the preliminaries with both crowns were arranged, the Duke should transmit them home, in order that they might be submitted to the King for his appro­ bation previous to their being signed.”2

What this decision

did in effect was to deprive the Duke of Bedford of the full power to negotiate the peace, and to leave him in a very em­ barrassing position.

Lord Bute who probably the most dis­

concerted of all, and ”after balancing awhile only between his fears of impeachment and of giving offence to the Duke of Bedford, allowed, like the generality of timid men, his imagination to prevail over his judgment, and yielded to a pressure which he felt to be unjust, but had not the firmness to resist.”3 Once the decision was made it was the duty of Lord Egre-

Grenville Papers, vol. i, p. 476. ^ Bedford Correspondence. vol. iii, p. 114. 3 Ibid., vol. iii, p. 114.

108 mont to inform the Duke about it.

And it was his purpose to

offend the Duke as little as possible.

In a letter to Gren­

ville on October 10, he explains how he hoped to accomplish this feat.

.EgremontTs idea was,

...to write first gently, and then stronger, to the Duke of Bedford, to prepare him by degrees for the alterations he was to expect in his Preliminaries, and make him, if possible, feel the mortification of the total disavo?/al less sharply...1 But the Duke of Bedford was offended in spite of Egre­ mont1s palliatives, and the whole affair was just another one of the factors which brought division and dissention within the Government. By this time even the public was aware of the confusion within the Cabinet.

On the 14th of October (1762), Lord Bute

wrote to the Duke of Bedford, trying to explain the nature of the trouble, and what he had done to solve it. Your Grace will be surprised at my long silence; but the strange situation of things here, and the necessity of some alteration, made me delay writing, till I could In­ form you of the remedy that has been applied to the weak­ ness under which Government laboured. Your Grace was present at some of the unhappy scenes of division amongst us: these have gone on increasing; and a strange opinion taken up and supported, of carrying the articles of peace to Parliament, to be approved of before signing, spread such rumours over the city, and sunk the Cabinet so ex­ tremely in the eyes■of even well-meaning people, that

^ Grenville Papers, vol. i, p. 480

109 some change was unavoidable.**’ The "change” Bute mentions was the taking of the leader­ ship of the Commons from Grenville and giving it to Henry Fox. And here begins another disappointing episode in the life of Grenville, who once more was to be subjected to the vagaries of political life. Mr. Fox had been persona non grata with the King and Lord Bute for some time.

In the fall of 1761, after the resigna­

tion of William Pitt, one of the arguments used to induce Grenville to take the leadership of the House of Commons ’’...was to prevent the seeming danger of the power falling

p

into Mr. Fox1s hands, whose party was then very powerful...” Grenville was.thus called in to ffresist him.”

In a conver­

sation between Bute and Grenville in which the name of Fox was mentioned, ’’...Lord Bute took occasion to desire Mr. Grenville never to name Mr. Fox1s name to the King.”s

The

reason for Bute’s mentioning the name of Fox was that Fox had told Bute in a letter that ”he was ready to take a part or not in public business, according as Mr. Grenville should

*** Bedford Correspondence. vol. iii, p. 155. ^ Grenville Papers, vol. i, p. 414. S Ibid., vol. I, p. 415.

110 wish and think best for the King’s s e r v i c e . U p o n learning of this, Grenville told Lord Bute that he held no fIpersonal hatred to any man, but that he could have no intercourse of business with Mr. Fox, and did not think it consistent with his opinions to concert any measures with him, and that he meant to say so to His Majesty; upon which Lord Bute desired him not to mention him to the King, who was already so ex­ asperated against him that it would alarm his mind to hear that any such proposition had been made."^ Now, after only a year, the situation had become so desperate that Lord Bute, and even the King, was ready to appeal to his enemy to save the Government for him. It was during the first week of October (1762) that Lord Halifax, now First Lord of the Admiralty, had been commis­ sioned to ,Tsound” the Duke of Newcastle, but the latter re­ fused to consider entering the Government.

On the 8th of

October, Friday, Lord Bute had told Grenville that no such negotiation was in process, 11though it is since known with the utmost certainty that Lord Shelburne went down to Mr. Fox at Margate, on Wednesday the 6th, to know whether he

^ Grenville Papers, vol. 1, p.415. 2 Ibid.. vol. i, p. 415.

Ill was willing to undertake the King's business.11^ On the 9th of October, Lord Bute sent his Under Secretary to inform Grenville of the Kingfs intention of placing Pox at the head of the Commons, in order 11...to obviate the diffi­ culties likely to arise in Parliament...”

Grenville, who was

not (surprisingly) stunned at the news, told Jenkinson that he ”... could give no answer to this extraordinary message; that when he saw Lord Bute he would speak to him upon it.”^ The next day, the 10th, Lord Bute wrote to Grenville somewhat in detail as to the reasons for the change in the Government •3

Grenville Papers, vol. i, p. 451. In a letter from Mr. Fox to the Duke of Bedford, dated October 13, after men­ tioning that Grenville was on the verge of giving up the Commons, Fox wrote: !!His Majesty was in great concern lest a good peace in a good house of Commons should be lost, and his authority disgraced, for want of*a proper person to sup­ port his honest measures, and keep his closet from that force with which it was so threatened. I was that person who could do it: so called upon he had that good opinion of me to think I would; and he knew not whom else he could call, if I declined it...In short, I am this morning declared a Cabinet Councillor, and His Majesty1s Minister in the House of Commons.” (Bedford Correspondence. vol. iii, p. 133-34.) 2 Grenville Papers, vol. 1, p. 451. ♦

3 ^Though I am convinced of the necessity of some new arrangement to carry through the King's measures at this critical minute, in order to enlarge the too narrow bottom of the Cabinet, and by firmness and unanimity to procure confidence and support; yet my friendship was so extremely sensible to the least uneasiness these ideas might give you, that I determined to open my thoughts at first through the

112

The day following, the llih, Grenville went to see Lord Bate.

To put it mildly, the proposed change was not "agree­

able” to Grenville.

Lord Bute began his explanation by tell­

ing Grenville how reluctant the King was "in parting with Mr. Grenville, and his own concern at the measure; but that though the King found himself obliged to do this, he hoped it would be but for a time; that His Majesty hoped Mr. Grenville would continue in his service; that he intended to make Lord Halifax Secretary of State, and Mr. Grenville First Comissioner of the Admiralty.”-^ When Lord Bute was through with his "civilities,” then Grenville began, not in anger or warmth, but with the cold, persistent logic that later was to mean the undoing of his relations with the King.

Grenville said:

Mr. Grenville entered his protest very strongly against the step the King was going to take, stated the improba­ bility of facilitating his affairs by calling in so un­

channel of a common friend (Mr. Jenkinson); this done, I can’t too soon have an opportunity of explaining the measures that occur to me as indispensably necessary at present, to resist the most audacious plan that ever was formed, to give the law to the best of Kings, at the risk even of the nation’s safety, and at the same time of learning how far these things are agreeable to you, and likely to meet with your concurrence.” (Grenville Papers, vol. i, p. 482.) -*• Ibid., vol. 1, p. 451. See also the King’s letter to Bute of May, 1762 in Sedgwick, op.. cit.. pp. 104-04, supra, p. 101.

115 popular a man as Mr. Fox, and foretold the ill success which must attend so desperate a measure: that he him­ self had been called upon by His Majesty to resist Mr. Foxfs power, that he had obeyed him by sacrificing to his commands a situation of ease, profit, and honour; that he did not inow shrink from danger; he saw none to alarm him; but at the same time if His Majesty thought it expedient to make the change, he should acquiesce; he never had, nor never would squabble for offices; that in Parliament he should support the Peace, but, as to everything else, must follow his own opinions.”1 When Grenville saw the King, he told him pretty much the same thing,

.dwelling strongly upon the ill success which

must attend...” such a desperate measure.

The King replied

apologetically, ”we must call in bad men to govern bad men.”2 On the 13th of October the changes in the Government were made; Henry Fox took over the leadership of the House of Com­ mons; Lord Halifax replaced Grenville as Secretary of State for the Northern Department; and Grenville became First Lord of the Admiralty.

And with the coming of Fox again into

power there begins a new chapter in Administrative intrigue, corruption and intimidation which outdid the period in the early 18th century when the Whigs dominated the government. The making of the peace was now in the hands of Henry Fox, a man who was willing to risk the storm of public and

^ Grenville Papers. vol. i, pp. 451-52 2 Ibid., vol. i, p. 453.

114 f

Parliamentary disfavor in the hope that somehow he might re­ coup at least a part of his political prestige*

He attacked

the problem fearlessly, and for those who could not be per­ suaded by logic he discovered and resorted to other ways. Grenville in the meantime persisted in opposing a peace which would nullify the great sacrifices of the long war. On the 24th of October (1762), he wrote in reply to Lord Egremont:

|!I have not changed my mind with regard to. the cession

of Guadaloupe and St. Lucia...fT Nor did Grenville change his mind to the very end.

Though not quite so extreme in his

ideas as Mr.* Pitt, Grenville might well have been in the Oppo­ sition with him, and it seemed that whether Grenville was in or out of Government he was usually in opposition to the poli­ cies of. the Administration.

But Grenville was at least con­

sistent, and seems to have been motivated by a conscientious­ ness which was lacking in the present Government, and even in Mr. Pitt, both of which were consistent only in their incon­ sistency. In November it was planned that Lord Egmont would lead for the peace in the House of'Lords, ff...the man, in all the creation, once most detested by Leicester House— more detested, if possible, than Fox himself.!!^

The King, who through abso-

^ Grenville Papers, vol. ii, p. 6, Lord Temple to Mr. Wilkes, November 21, 1762.

lute expediency had called in men whom he so detested to make the peace, placed a child-like reliance on Lord Bute, who was the only man in the Government whom he could really call his friend*

One story given by the yeoman of the guard was to the

effect that f,the King cannot live without my Lord Bute; if he goes anywhere, he stops when he comes back to ask of the yeo­ man of the guard if my Lord Bute is come yet, and that his lords, or the people that are with him, look as mad as can be at it.r!^* The Peace finally was passed by both Houses of Parliament on the 10th of February, 1765.

Almost all of the conquests

made by England were returned to France.

France was given

fishing rights on the coast of Newfoundland and in, the Gulf of the St. Lawrence River; Guadaloupe was given up lfat an extraordinary Council called when Mr. Grenville was ill in p bed, and not able to attend it.t!^ Havannah was exchanged for the ,!poor and barren province of Florida. These cessions were characteristic.

Perhaps one of the

most commendable features of the treaty was that England did

^ Grenville Papers, vol. ii, p. 22, Countess Temple to Lord Temple, December 17, 1765. 2 Ibid., vol. i, p. 450. 3 Ihid.« vol. 1, p. 450.

116 not insist upon’the destruction of French sea power, a measure which Pitt had thought absolutely necessary.

Pitt was one who

believed in a Commercial monopoly,” and felt that the Commer­ cial interests of different nations were necessarily antagonist­ ic.

Had such a measure been acceded to be France, it would

have made ^national animosities indelible.”2 The methods used by Fox and Lord Bute to get the peace through Parliament are indicative of the character and desper­ ation of the Ministry.

Hardly had Fox taken the lead of the

Commons when he began to prepare the ground for the passage of the peace.

There must be a complete change in the person­

nel of the Government positions, great and small.

On the 17th

of December, Countess Temple wrote to Lord Temple: There have been this day several coming in and turning out; three have kissed hands,and the places are all to be filled up in a moment. It isbelieved, and given out, that even to a hundredth cousin of those who have not beg haved well are to march out of the most trifling places. And the ”most trifling places” were affected.

Fox himself

justifies the measure in recommending it to Lord Bute: But, my Lord, with regard to their (the enemies of the

^ Lecky, pp.. cit.. vol. iii,

p. 49.

2 Ibid.. vol. iii, p. 48.

3 Grenville Papers. vol. ii,

p. 2 2 .

117 Government) numerous dependents in Crown employments, it behoves your Lordship in particular to leave none of them. Their connections spread very wide, and every one of them, their relations and friends, is in his heart your enemy. They all think themselves secure, and many talk with their own mouths, all by those of their rela­ tions and acquaintances, against your Lordship. Turn the tables, and you will immediately have thousands who will think the safety of themselves or their friends depends upon your Lordship, and will therefore be sincere and active friends. I have very little to do with this per­ sonally, but am willing to take upon myself all the odium of the advice, as I am sure it is the only way to make the rest of His Majesty1s reign or of.your Administration easy. And I donft care how much I am hated if-I can say to myself, I did His Majesty such honest and essential service.1 But the more important figures were to be affected too. Earlier Fox had written to Bute and urged him to nstrip the Duke of Newcastle of his three Lieutenancies immediately...n "I1!! answer for the good effect of it, and then go on to t h e general rout, but let this beginning be made immediately.tf^

In addition to the ffthousands” who were taken into the public payroll, enormous amounts of money were spent to pur­ chase votes.

The situation is suggested in the followings

Bribes ranging from 200 pounds and upwards were given almost publicly at tlq.e pay office. Martin, the Secre­ tary of the Treasury, afterwards admitted that no less than 25,000 pounds were expended in a single morning

^ Life of Shelburne. vol. i, pp. 137-38, Fox to Bute, December, 1762. 2

Fitzmaurice, op. cit., vol. i, p. 137, Fox to Bute, November, 1762.

118 in purchasing votes. Large sums are said to have been given to corporations to petition for the peace. Urgent letters were written to the lord-lieutenants of the coun­ ties calling on them to procure addresses with the same object.-*’ It is true that such practices were not uncommon.

But

from the standpoint of efficiency in Government, the placing of the large body of permanent civil service personnel at the disposal of the Ministry, and subjecting that part of the government (which lent to government stability and continuity) to the vagaries of politics was probably the greater evil than the huge expenditure of public monies. accomplished his "essential service."

But Fox had

The peace was carried,

and all that remained for Fox was to receive the blessing of the King, which he did shortly, after when he, among other things, was created Lord of Holland.

^ Lecky, op. pit., vol. iii, p. 56. ^ Memorandum on the events of 176B, in Fitzmaurice, Shel­ burne, vol. i, pp. 139-40. "He thought he had performed every­ thing he promised, and that he could not be sufficiently re­ warded. He therefore, being still determined to retire at the end of the year, that is to go to the House of Lords, no long­ er took any trouble about the individuals or the business of the House of Commons. His neglect of every individual with whom he was not particularly connected by relationship or interest hurt his character extremely, as it took off from the most amiable part of it, which was generally believed too. He was averse even to take the trouble of seeing them, and from that moment thought of nothing but what he should ask for him­ self, his brother, his nephews, his own and his wifefs rela­ tions, and his immediate dependents."

119 A peace coming at the end of a seven years war should normally have received popular approval.

The people were

tired of war, and the military and political prestige of Eng­ land was at its height.^But the peace was not popular,jand the reason cannot be laid entirely to the terms themselves. Lord Bute as the Court favorite was detested, as most court favorites in England had been.

The rumors of the

scandalous relations between Lord Bute and the King1s.mother were believed with eagerness.

At the beginning of the reign

of George. .Ill, ”a paper was affixed to the Royal Exchange with the words, *no petticoat government, no Scotch Minister, no Lord George Sackville. ..1

And for over two years now,

Leicester House and the Bute party had been in the closest collaboration. Perhaps one of the greatest sources of popular indigna­ tion had been the withdrawal of William Pitt from government. His prediction of war with Spain, which the Cabinet refused to recognize, added considerably to the popular regard for Pitt.

All this, of course, was added to the favor he had

already attained as the representative of the people, for Pitt gloried in being called the ^dhampion of the people.” And as the ”voice of the people” he made any government which

1

Adolphus, op. pit., vol. i, pp. 571-72.

120

he opposed an unstable one.*** Another factor was Lord Butefs Scotch nationality.

Dur­

ing this period of English history, the relations between the English and the Scotch were extremely strained.

The rebellion

of 1745 and the abortive attempt to place the Stuart Pretender on the throne of England were still remembered by the older generation*

The Scotch continued to commit a long list of 2 sins against the English, and with the help of such men as

John Wilkes, a vitriolic and inflammatory English writer, neither the English nor the Scotch were allowed to forget their long quarrel.

But the consequence of all this was that

the English hatred for the Scotch in general seems to have be­ come fixed against the person of Lord Bute in particular.

As

a result, the reign of George III, which had begun with such promise, fell almost immediately into popular disfavor. Lord Bute was not a leader.

He lacked one of the most

important requirements for a leader of government and men, that of being able to win the friendship and loyalty of the men with 3 whom he must work. His character was impugned, and his alleged secret negotiation with Prince Galitzen of Russia ”left a cloud

^ Lecky, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 516. 2 See ibid.. vol. iii, pp. 50-51. ^ ”His honour, thought it was probably unstained, was cer­ tainly not unsuspected.” (Ibid.* vol. iii, p. 54.)

121

of suspicion upon it.”'*' Furthermore, the financial administration of Lord Butefs p

Ministry ”was one of the worst ever known in England.”

Sir

Francis Dashwood was*Butefs Chancellor of the Exchequer, a. man who had no financial knowledge.

”His budget speech... 3 was received with shouts of laughter.” In the spring of 1763

he was forced to impose a tax on cider because he cotild not be made to understand the workings of a tax on linen.^ Henry Fox, the one man in the Government with true admin­ istrative ability, had stood by Lord Bute, not in the hope of adding strength to the Government or of salvaging the waning prestige of the King and his favorite, but with the purpose ”of recovering his ascendancy,” and he had for that reason

**■ This charge of double-dealing against Lord Bute had to do with the alleged promise Bute made to Austria that if she signed an early peace she might hope to expect compensation from Prussia. But at the same time, Bute urged that Russia maintain her troops in Prussia in order to make Prussia give large concessions to Austria. This story was told by Prince Galitzen, who was supposed to have been the medium ofthe transaction. Frederick of Pressia believed thestory, and it was another reason for his opposition to Butefs Government. (Lecky, op. cit.. vol. iii, p. 55.) S Ibid., vol. H i ,

p. 55.

s Ibid.. vol. iii,

p. 56.

^ Ibid.. vol. iii,

p. 56, n.

122

“fearlessly confronted the tempest of opposition.11^ With so many factors against him it is little wonder that Lord Bute early began to look for a way out.

He might have

resigned long before if it had not been for the fact that the King was so utterly dependent upon him.

But in the spring of

1763, Lord Bute realized that the situation was intolerable, and he determined to withdraw from the Government.

He had

just inherited a large fortune, and although he maintained that he should retire and have nothing more to do with poli­ tics, he apparently hoped to keep control from behind the 2 scenes. Henry Fox, after much haggling with Lord Bute, re­ tained his “lucrative office of Paymaster,” and was created Lord Holland.

And with Lord Bute, his Chancellor of the Ex­

chequer, Sir Francis Dashwood, also resigned. CONCLUSION Soon after George III came to the throne he began re­ shaping his cabinet.

Although Lord Bute had been virtually

a cabinet minister since the accession, he actually became Secretary of State in March, 1761.

Then followed the efforts

of Bute to bring the war to a close over the opposition of Pitt.

-*• Lecky, op,, cit., vol. iii, p. 56. 2 Ibid.. vol. iii, p. 63.

123 By October, 1761, Pitt was convinced that Spain was pre­ paring for war with England, and when he could not persuade the Cabinet to declare war on Spain, he resigned.

Temple

resigned along with Pitt, leaving the government in the hands of the inexperienced Lord Bute. Lord Bute urged Grenville to take the office of Secretary of State, but the latter refused, saying he would much rather be Speaker of the House of Commons.

The King, believing that

Grenville could be of much greater service as leader in the Commons, offered him the position which Grenville accepted after insisting he was unqualified. In December, Pitt’s prediction regarding Spain came true, and on the 31st, England declared war.

On a bill appropriat­

ing two million pounds for the assistance of Portugal, the Treasury refused to support the Duke of Newcastle (First Lord of the Treasury), and he resigned, leaving his office to be filled by Lord Bute as Prime Minister.

Grenville filled the

office of Secretary of State vacated by Bute. Lord Bute as Prime Minister tried to get France to agree with England to withdraw from the Continental war whether Austria or Prussia did or not, bringing upon his head the execrations of Frederick of Prussia.

Lord Bute seems to

have anticipated considerable opposition to the kind of peace he was ready to offer France, and believing that Grenville was not strong enough to get the peace through the House of

124 Commons, removed him from the leadership, and replaced him with Fox*

(Fox had traditionally been persona non grata with

both the King and Lord Bute*)

Lord Halifax took the office

of Secretary of State also vacated by Grenville, and the lat­ ter became First Lord of the Admiralty* Fox assumed full power for carrying the peace in the Com-, mons; his methods were bribery, intimidation, and wholesale dismissals of officials from positions both high and low. The peace was approved by the Cabinet while Grenville was ill and unable to make his protest. In spite of the fact that the war had been of seven years1 duration, the peace was not a popular one, largely because of Lord Bute.

His Scotch nationality, in addition to his posi­

tion as "favorite", made him a..very unpopular man.

The resig­

nation of Pitt and the subsequent fulfillment of his predic­ tions regarding Spain further detracted from the prestige of Bute. nable.

The administration of the country1s finances was abomi­ Of the qualities of leadership so greatly needed•at

this crisis in English history, Lord Bute lacked even the rudiments.

Sensing his unpopularity and the need for a new

government, he was persuaded to resign in April, 1763.

Al­

though he held no official position immediately thereafter, he nevertheless continued to be a powerful and disrupting influence in the affairs of government.

Grenville was se­

lected as his successor in the belief that through him he

might continue to exert his influence.

But Grenville refused

to be a stooge, and he not only made life uncomfortable for the King, but eventually he was able (for a time) to remove Bute almost completely from public affairs.

CHAPTER V PRELIMINARIES TO THE GRENVILLE ADMINISTRATION

At the time of Bute»s resignation it was believed that his decision was somewhat precipitate.

More than once his

life had been endangered by attacks upon his person, so that he was obliged to hire body guards.

Under these cir­

cumstances the public might well have assumed that he re­ signed in order to avoid risking any further danger to him­ self,

But this opinion is not born out by the facts.

Bute did not resign until the eighth of April, 1763,

Lord That

he had considered the idea for some time is indicated by the pleas of the King that he stay in office.

But in any case,

it is possible that he definitely began to make arrangements for his withdrawal as long as a month before he actually resigned.

In a letter to Grenville of March 25, 1763, in

discussing a new government, Bute wrote: I have communicated to our common friend Elliot, the general points that passed between us. I did it on purpose that he might know my regard for you, and that he might carry you my final determination without in­ curring the suspicion that frequent visits bring with

127 them, in this most critical minute.1 Lord Bute then goes on to state the reasons why he would prefer Grenville to anyone else as Prime Minister. It is interesting to note that Lord Bute should have been the one to consult and interview his successor instead of the King*

But this was not the last time that Lord Bute

was to take an active part in the formation of a government, even though he himself was not in office.

In this particu­

lar case, "He seems to have been invested with absolute power for the formation of the future Cabinet, which was to be completely arranged before his own resignation took ef­ fect."2

The fact that he was entrusted with this task in­

dicates further the reliance the King had placed in him. Both Adolphus and Horace Walpole maintain that Mr. Pitt had been offered a place in the Cabinet at this time.

Wal­

pole states further that Lord Bute offered the offices of Secretary of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer to Henry Fox before he approached Grenville.

But there is

nothing in the correspondence of Grenville, Pitt or Fox to indicate that this was true.

1 Grenville Papers, vol. ii, p. 33. 2 Ibid.. vol. ii, pp. 32-33, n. ® "...it seems most probable that Lord Bute was, for reasons of his own, sincere in his wish for Mr. Grenville...

128 In the discussions betweenfBute and Grenville, the lat­ ter seems to have raised some objections to the proposal, for Lord Bute in his letter of March 25, above, goes on to say: I still continue to wish for you preferable to other ar­ rangements, but if you cannot forget old grievances, and cordially take the assistance of all the King*s friends, i that are determined to give it; if Lord Egremont's quit­ ting the seals, or Lord Shelburne having them, are obstac­ les to your mins at present insurmountable, I must in a few hours put other~things in agitation, in which case, I again repeat, ! expect the strictest honour, and that iarhat has passed may convinve you of my friendship, affection, and opinion.2 In his diary Grenville explains how much the King gave his support to Bute in regard to Grenville, and. Butefs own reasons for resigning: ...in this state there was nobody whom the King so much wished to see at the head of the Treasury as Mr. Gren­ ville; that for his own part he (Bute) was determined to be a private man for thg rest of his days, never to inter­ meddle in Government... 3

and that Fox was the only alternative he should have had re­ course to, in case Mr. Grenville had declined the offer...” (Grenville Papers, vol. ii, p. 52 ff, n.) 1 "The designation of certain persons as the King *s friends was a phrase much commented upon hereafter as^ a nick name. I do not know whether Lord Bute invented it, but this Is the first time I find it used in this correspondence.” (Ibid.. vol. ii, p. 33, n.) 8 Ibid.. vol. il, p. 33*

3 Ibid.. vol. i, p. 452.

129 Grenville was much impressed by both the importance of* the proposed position, and the apparent regard with which he was held by the King and Lord Bute, .♦•I have.,,the pleasure of thinking, from the very kind and affectionate expressions you make use of towards me, that you are fulle convinced how warm a sense I have of this high mark of your friendship and good opinion, in your recommendation-of me to the King to be First Com­ missioner of the Treasuryi ana that in this respect my sentiments are hot mistaken. Grenville was apparently at this point entirely unaware of the ultimate intentions of Lord Bute,

It is strange that

the very circumstance of the negotiations, that is, the re­ lation of Lord Bute to them, did not give rise to any sus­ picion in Grenville.

Grenville then goes on:

I feel so truly the infinite importance of that office, at this critical minute; nor can I ever forget the signal proof of the confidence you repose in me, and of the hon­ our you do me in this destination of me to fill it. I will make myself as worthy of it as I can, and endeavour, if possible, to deserve it, by giving you the unreserved dictates of my heart.* It is not surprising that Grenville shoud have felt him­ self honored in being offered the prime ministership.

But

It Is surprising, in view of the fact that it was Lord Bute who had only five months before demoted him from the position of Secretary of State in favor of Fox, that Grenville should

^ Grenville Papers. vol. ii, p. 34, Grenville to Bute, March 25, 1763.

2 Ibid.. vol. ii, p. 34.

130 have manifested no doubt concerning the position or inten­ tions of Lord in his correspondence with him, and that he registered no suspicion in his diary*

He seems to have tak­

en Lord Bute at his word, and to have accepted the facts, prima facie*

He certainly could not have forgotten the treat­

ment he had recently received at the hands of Lord Bute.

And

that he was not indifferent to it at the time is shown by the protest he made to both Lord Bute and the King, and the fact that he had pouted through the first part of the current ses­ sion of Parliament, having felt himself ^neglected.11 Grenville’s eagerness in the matter may be explained by the fact that he, like so many of his contemporaries, was ambitious for high office and the prestige that went with it. Such an explanation is plausible, but is not borne out in Grenville’s political career prior to this, nor in the years that were to follow.

The most logical explanation would sug­

gest that Grenville, in spit© of his long association with Government and with the men who comprised it, was fundamen­ tally lacking in the capacity to determine the true motives of men*

The word ”expediency” seems not to have been in his

political vocabulary.

He was willing to take a man at his

word, and he was extremely sensitive to any violation of it. But what is strange is that he was so quick to forgive, so quick t o reconsider, and so quick to be offended all over again.

Grenville seems never to have been able to make pro­

151 per deductions of men’s character and motives.

He was so

conscientious and diligent in the performance of his own of­ fices, and so scrupulous in his own conduct, that he does not seem to have suspected

that there were other modes of

conduct, even though he himself was so often the unfortunate victim of them. In his long reply to Lord Butefs letter, Grenville is quick to assure Bute that no" grievance will influence in the performance of his duty to the King.**

But he did con­

tinue in his opinion regarding Lord Egremont and Lord Shelburne.

Concerning Lord Egremont, Grenville said he would

have nothing to do v/ith the former’s resignation.

If Lord

Egremont desired to resign of his own accord, then Grenville would-make no objection, but as for forcing him out of office, Grenville could conscientiously take no part In it.

%

Although Grenville’s response concerning Egremont is somewhat laconic, he does, however, go into great detail

ffI do assure you, my Lord, no grievances whatever, either old or new, as far as they relate personally to myself, shall, in my mind ever stand a moment in competition with what -I owe'the King, or prevent me from acting with those whom His Majesty shall call into his service.11 (Grenville Papers, vol. ii, p. 54, Grenville to Bute, -March 25, 176375 ^ See supra, p. 128, Bute to Grenville. ® Tfifhen Lord Bute became First Lord of the Treasury, it will be remembered that Grenville refused to take the office of Secretary of State at the expense of Egremont.

152 about the inadvisability of making Lord Shelburne Secretary of Stalte. *And in thin instance one may deduce that. Grenville was acutely aware of the difficulties of forming a new govern­ ment which would be both a service to the King and agreeable to Parliament and the people.

He states first that his ob­

jections to Lord Shelburne were not from "any personal con­ siderations of w

own, which I beg leave, in a business of

this moment, to lay entirely out of the question..."

But he

did wonder "...how far that appointment will effect the car­ rying into execution that system, which the King thinks of forming for his future government, and which (whoever is em­ ployed in it) must at present unavoidably be attended with great .'difficulties.

Grenville then goes on to enumerate

the "great difficulties" he suggested above.

He points out

Shelburne *s "youth;" ^inexperience in business;" his lack of "civil office experience;" "...and...his situation and family, so lately raised to the peerage..."

Grenville wrote:

The envy and jealousy of the* old Peers, many of whom are ' already trying to band together, must naturally be excit­ ed to the highest pitch by a distinction of which, in most of its circumstances, there is, I believe, no example in history. The pretentions of such as now hold offices of the sec­ ond rank in the House of Lords will be raised to a degree that cannot be gratified, and their disgust and disappoint­ ment will either break out into an open resistance, or at

^ Grenville Papers, vol. ii, p. 35.

153 least prevent any cordial fupport.

1

Then he continues to show that it is imperative that the opin­ ions of such men as Lord Egremont, Lord Halifax, Lord Mans­ field, Lord Egmont, Lord Marchmont, Lord Denbigh, Bedford, a nd Lord Gower should be ascertained in the matter, and this he could not do because of the secrecy necessary to the pre­ sent negotiations. I cannot persuade myself that many of these, even of the most congenial, would bear Lord Shelburne’s being put at once over their heads, with satisfaction or content. Grenville suggests that a similar situation would have to be faced in the House of Commons. A s for the public, Grenville said, it would be «surprised

and offended at the novelty of this step in all its circum­ stances.11 In conclusion Grenville stated that this appoint­ ment would be especially bad at this time, ...when so large a body of the nobility are ostentatiouscombining themselves in a publicly avowed opposition: a a measure-on their part which surely makes it advisable in Government to place in the first offices at least such persons as may be free not only from, real, but even plau­ sible objections. Grenville concludes his long letter with a mark of selfeffacement and typical sincerety: Upon the whole, whether I bear any part in this transa ction or not, which perhaps may be of little consequence to the public welfare, yet, let me beseech your Lordship, from your affection and duty to the King, and from what

1 I inc lude here the major part of the letter in order to show the character of Grenville’s reasoning with regard to the political situation he was obliged to face.

154 you owe to yourself and to your country, to give this subject a thorough examination before you determine upon a matters of this infinite moment, that if you still per­ sist in your former resolution of retreatl which I most earnestly wish you if possible to to reconsider, the es­ tablishment which the King shall now think fit to make in his Government, may be such a one as will reflect hon­ our on your Lordship who advised it, and give that per­ manency and stability whichm in the present crisis, is es­ sentially necessary to his Administration•^ Lord Bute accepted the advice of Grenville in this mat­ ter.

Lord Shelburne gladly stepped aside, and Lords Hali­

fax and Egremont took the two offices of Secretary of State. But Lord Bute did not wish to*lose entirely the benefit of having Lord -Shelburne in the Government, for Shelburne was closely allied to the followers of Henry Fox, and ”...he can better prevent Fox’s people from going off to the enemy, in case of accident to the latter, - than any man now living...n So, in order to effect this safeguard, Shelburne was appointed

1 ffA still stronger reason for believing that Lord Bute had long determined upon retirement, and that it was his own desire.w (Grenville Papers. vol. ii, p. 39, n;) 2 All of the above quotations are taken from a letter of Grelnville’s _to Bute, dated March 25, 1763, and found in Gren­ ville Papers. vol. ii, pp. 35-39. 3 «He means, I presume, in case Fox should be so extreme; ly offended that the Treasury had not been offered to him, as to go into opposition. According to Walpole, Fox was great­ ly enraged with Shelburne for having so long concealed from him Lord Bute’s intended resignation.,f (Grenville Papers, vol. ii, p. 41, n.) 4 Ibid.. vol. ii, pp. 39-40, Bute to Grenville.

135 ^President of the Board of Trade, which he resigned only five months later, on the 3rd of September. The Grenville ministry was made up of both Tories and Whigs.

Grenville himself had started his political career

as a member of the Whig party, or at least of a faction in it, but throughout the subsequent years he had gradually aligned himself with that group of reactionaries who rebelled at the excesses of the long Whig regime, and devoted their efforts to the restoration of monarchical control in England.

Gren­

ville fs early life, of course, had been one of politics and not policy.

He had joined himself to the fortunes of Wil­

liam Pitt and Lord Temple.

The cleavage between Grenville

,and the latter had begun as a result of their continued dis­ regard and mistreatment of Grenville*

It had grown over the

peace ending the Seven Years War, and was made complete Y/hen Pitt and Temple resigned while Grenville continued to hold office* If Grenville had had available the support of Pitt and Temple he would have had much to strengthen his Administra­ tion*

But as it was, the two men who rightfully should have

been his allies had become his enemies, and his government could not help feeling the force of their opposition. Lord Egremont, one of Grenvillefs closest friends, was probably the strongest factor in Grenville*s government at the very beginning, but his death in August, 1763, did it

136 considerable damage.

Egremont^ had the backing of a strong

group of Tories who ?/ere allied to him rather than to Gren­ ville . Lord Halifax* who became Secretary of State along with y

Egremont, was a polished gentleman with "no great political a b i l i t y . H e was of the reactionary branch of Tories al­ ready mentioned, and with Egremont had «...entered thorough­ ly into the necessity of a strict union, not only amongst ourselves, but with all the other parts of the defenders of Government, "and this as the only means of supporting the Kingfs independency. The next strongest factor in the government was the Duke of Bedford and his party.

Until September, 1763, Bedford

was unconvinced that the Grenville Government could stand, and, as will be shown later, was actively engaged in trying to re­ place it.

After the Government had successfully withstood—

throughout the summer and autumn— the attempts to overthrow it, -p—

Bedford decided to join.

But the opposition Grenville had

given to Bedford*s efforts as Ambassador to France during the peace negotiations rendered the Duke of Bedford "neutral, if not hostile."3

1 Lecky, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 67. 2 Grenville Papers. vol. ii, p. 40, Bute to Grenville, April 1, 1763. 3 Lecky, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 70.

137 The Duke of Bedford himself was not particularly inter­ ested in holding office, but he had a rather numerous follow­ ing that was.**"

Bedford was "violent, harsh and fearless,"

and the only one who had courage enough to attack Pitt when he was at the height of his power.

2

It is little wonder, then, that in vievr of the original composition of his Ministry, Grenville should have said la­ ter that the success of his Administration had surpassed his "most sanguine expectations." Other officers in the new Government were Lord Sandwich, whose profligacy was notorious.

He succeeded to the place of

Lord Egremont as Secretary of State after the latter»s death. He, along with John Wilkes, was a member of the Medmenhaia Brotherhood, famous for its debaucheries.

Ironically, it was

Sandwich who was to lead the Parliamentary proceedings against his "brother" Wilkes in the latter *s trial over the publica­ tion of the "No. 45" of the North Briton.

Lord Hillsborough

became President of the Board of Trade upon the resignation of Lord Shelburne on the 3rd of September, 1763, and Lord Eg-

^ "..♦the faction he directed amalgamated with no party, but made overtures in turn to each, entered into temporary al­ liances with each, deserted each, and formed and dissolved its connections chiefly on personal grounds." (Lecky, on. cit.. vol. iii, p. 67.) 2 Ibid.. vol. iii, p. 67. dence. vol. iii, p. 56.

See also Bedford Correspon­

138 mont was appointed First Lordiof the Admiralty. The current session of Parliament came to an end only a few days after Grenville assumed the offices of First Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer on April 10, 1763.

In the King’s Speech closing the session on April 19,

a speech which was really that of the retiring Administra­ tion, the foreign policy of Bute’s Government was identified with the hew, and it took notice of the "happy effects" of the recent peace, "so honourable to the Crown, and so bene­ ficial to my people."1

^ Parliamentary History, vol. xv, pp. 1381-31.

CHAPTER VI THE WILKES AFFAIR

On the 23rd of April, 1763, John Wilkes published the ”No. 4511 of the North Briton, out in 1762#

a periodical which first came

The ”No. 45” was devoted to the Kingfs speech

noted above, against which Wilkes made a scurrilous attack* Hardly anything which might be credited to the Administration of Lord Bute excaped his pen:

the peace with France, the

abandonment of Prussia, the cider tax, the well-established position of Scotchmen and Jacobites in the Government, refering especially to Lord Bute, who ”...has given too just cause for him to escape the general odium.”

He went on to say that

the King was merely the first magistrate of this country,” and by implication somewhat responsible to the wishes of his people.

And by way of generalization he referred to the speech

as 11the most abandoned instance of ministerial affrontery ever attempted to be imposed upon mankind.”1 The reaction of the Court to the attack was a spontaneous explosion of rage, for the King and his party looked upon it

Lecky, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 71.

140 ars a direct attack upon the "personal veracity of the Sovereign."

1

Lecky suggests that the criticisms "though severe,

were not excessive*"

But the King was so enraged that he gave

orders that Wilkes should he completely crushed* It had long been customary for the Speeches of the Crown to be regarded as those of the Ministry, and not of the King himself, for the chief ministers almost always had a share in their composition, if they did not write them completely. But in this instance exception was taken to the custom, and a general warrant was signed by Lord Halifax for the arrest of the "authors, printers, and publishers," and an order was given to seize all the papers* John Wilkes had begun a very colorful and notorious ca­ reer when at the age of twenty-two he married a wealthy heir­ ess ten years his senior, from whom he was later separated. He was "scandalously and notoriously profligate" and "exceed­ ingly profane."

But his character was not entirely on the

evil side, for he possessed a "brilliant wit, good humor, personal courage, ^arxd shrewd judgment."

He "half-conquered”

the Toryism of Dr. Johnson, and was given a "warm tribute" by Gibbon.s

1

Lecky, op. cit.* vol. iii, p. 71.

2 Ibid.. vol. iii, p. 72.

141 In 1757 he became a member of Parliament for Aylesbury, and soon after attached himself to Lord Temple both personally and politically*11 During the period of his trial he was to become heavily indebted financially to Lord Temple, who was one of the few who remained loyal to his cause of ^liberty.” Early in the year 1762, Wilkes began to achieve fame through the publication of the North Briton, in which he held many political leaders up to ridicule and to'rment.

His at­

tacks from the very beginning were so violent that his good friend Lord Temple advised him to use a little more caution lest he offend the public sensibility. In the correspondence of Lord Temple with Wilkes, the former frequently uses the third person in refering to the . author of the North Briton, pretending not to know who it was. It is quite probable that he did, however, for John Almon, a prominent political writer of the time, states that lfLord Temple was not ignorant of his friendis design before he put it into execution, and certainly approved of it.t!^* On June 27 (1762), Temple wrote to Wilkes recommending jokingly that this man Wilkes ought to use less acrimony on the public ministers, and then refering to his previous advice, says, ”...but I find the N.B. (North Briton) doth not mend from sage advice.

I

must, therefore deliver him to the tormentors, the Briton, the

^ Grenville Papers, vol. i, p. 457, n.

142 Auditor, the Occasional Writer.^ and to his own conscience.*.t!^ Temple and Wilkes enjoyed making light of the position of George Grenville.

On one occasion Temple made an ”ironical

a l l u s i o n t o his brother, George, whom he regarded »in every light the most respectable of his family.

Wilkes countered

with: My Lord, you have been much abused; but you forgive all, and so do I, excepting only those few words, that he is, in every light the most respectable of his family. Good God! what a family! In my turn I will call for fine, pillory, and Imprisonment, and hope your Lordship vd.ll take notice only of this one truth, for the sake of the English Peerage.4 In early September, 1762, as the result of some wsilly" remark made by Wilkes in the North Briton about a Lord Talbot, Wilkes was challenged to a duel with pistols.

Furtunately,

neither was hurt, and the affair ended honorably for both men. But Wilkes was challenged to three more duels, in one of which he was very seriously wounded. Not only was the North Briton the object of Government observation, but also the correspondence to and from Wilke&.

These publications were all favorable to the Ministry. 2 Grenville Pacers. vol. i, pp. 460-61, Temple to Wilkes. ® Ibid.. vol. i, p. 469, Temple to Wilkes, September 11, 1762. 4 I M d .. vol. 1, p. 473.

143 In October, Lord Temple wrote to Wilkes mentioning the opening of his mail at the Post Office: I am so used to things of this sort at the Post Office, and I am so sure that every line I write must be seen, but I never put anything in black and white which might not be read at Charing Cross, for all I care.1 Temple became worried at the audacity of Wilkes concerning some of the things which he persisted in sending through the mail, and finally begged Wilkes not to do so.

Wilkes, who

enjoyed attacking his victims through the medium of verse, w ro te

thus of Lord Bute:

The King gave but one, but like t fother Scot Chartres. All England to hang him would give him both garters: And, good Lord! how the rabble would laugh and would hoot, Could they once set a swinging this John Earl of ____ In all, there were forty-nine persons arrested under the general warrant.

Wilkes was imprisoned in spite of parliament­

ary privilege and held incommunicado. allowed to see neither his friends nor the solicitor.

He finally obtained a write of

habeas corpus from the Court of Common Pleas, and in a sgeech he addressed to the Court he said he had been "worse treated than any rebel Scot.11s

^ Grenville Papers. vol. i, p. 489, Temple to Wilkes, October 17, 1762. 2 Ibid.. vol. i, p. 489, Wilkes to Temple, October 12, 1762. ^ Lecky, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 74. For Wilkes1 speech in the House of Commons, in which he made his protest, see Appendix II, p. iv.

144 Shortly thereafter Chief Justice Pratt stated that parlia­ mentary privilege relieved Wilkes from arrest, and under this "privilege" he could be held only for treason, felony, and breach of the peace.

Chief Justice Pratt maintained further

that "warrants to search for, seize, and carry away papers on a charge of libel, were contrary to law. In the meantime, some of the others arrested had obtained damages.

Wilkes himself obtained 1,000 pounds damages from

Under-Secretary of State Wood, who had executed the general warrant. In a general warrant, the subjects to be arrested are not named specifically.

It had been sometime since this procedure

had been used to any extent in England, but apparently no de­ finitive judicial decision had been given as to its legality. Chief Justice Pratt, who gained considerable popularity as a result of his decisions on the case, held that a warrant signed by the Secretary of State without naming the persons to be arrested was illegal. As a part of the King’s program to "crush" Wilkes, Wilkes was deprived of his position as Colonel of the Buckinghamshire Militia.

It was the duty of Lord Temple to inform Wilkes of

his dismissal, which he did in a very complimentary manner. As a result, Temple was dismissed from the Lord Lieutenancy

Lecky, op. cit., vol. Iii, p. 74.

145 of Buckingham, and his name was struck from the list of Privy Councillors in the following note of dismissal from Lord Hali­ fax: The King has commanded me to acquaint your Lordship that His Majesty has no further occasion for your services as Lord-Liehtenant and Custos Rotulorum of the County of Buckingham* I am, my Lord, your Lordship’s obedient humble servant.^ Wilkes, encouraged by his lawyers and arising public favor, was optimistic about the final outcome of his trial* On July 23rd, he wrote to Temple: On my return to London I have had the happiness of find­ ing that the City of London, and County of Surrey, are almost unanimous in the great cause of liberty. The noble spirit and animation of therpeople is beyond de­ scription, and the Bill of Exceptions is almost univer­ sally considered as an infamous attempt to render the sacred verdicts of juries of no effect.2 At this time the Grenville Government was already shaky,

Grenville Papers * vol. il, p. 55, May 7, 1763. ITThis strictly official and very formal letter was no doubt intended to be as contemptuous as possible. It is written in a clerk’s han,d, and signed only- by Lord Halifax. The following lines were written by Lady Temple on this occasion: ’To honour virtue in the Lord of Stowe> The power of courtiers can no farther go ; Forbid him court, from council blot his name, E ’en these distinctions cannot raise his fame. Friend to the liberties of England’s state, ’Tis not to Courts he looks to make him great: He to his much-lov’d country trusts his cause, And dares assert the honour of her laws.” 1 (Grenville Papers, vol. ii, p. 55, n. 2 Ibid.. vol. ii, p. 78

146 and negotiations were in progress with William Pitt to take over the Administration.

In the same letter (above) Wilkes

suggests the character of public opinion in this regard with the view that a change in government might possibly mean the dismissal of the charges against him: ...The opinion of the public is that the present Admini­ stration will not subsist many days; they have long sur­ vived the good opinion, if they ever had any share of It, of their countrymen.l In August (1763), Wilkes went to France, where he was challenged on the streets of Paris to a duel by a Scotchman named Forbes.

Wilkes accepted, but apparently nothing ever

came of the incident.

Another duel was pending with Lord

Egremont when the latter died suddenly on the 21st.

From

Paris Wilkes wrote Temple, telling him how happy all the English were there concerning the f,entire change of the Mini2

stry, and the restoration of your Lordship and the Whigs.” At this time negotiations again were in process with Pitt.

The Whigs were not ”restored,” however, except that the Duke of Bedford, after about six months of intrigue against the Government, finally did Join it in September. In October, Wilkes was back in England, with enthusiasm

^ Grenville Papers, vol. ii, p. 78. s Ibid.. vol. ii, p. 112.

147 assuming himself to be the champion of popular liberties. nI. hope to be able to dedicate myself entirely to the noble cause I am concerned in,11 he wrote to Temple, ”and to merit the approbation of every lover of the liberties and constitu1 tion of this country...” Meanwhile, Grenville was marshalling his forces for the opening day of Parliament, November 15, when he was to initi­ ate the proceedings against Wilkes.

On October 15, Grenville

wrote to Lord Strange urgently requesting him to come to Lon­ don, in order to discuss his taking the lead against Wilkes, and explained in flattering terms why he believed Lord Strange was best suited for the task: The proposition for the censure of that most extravagant libel ought to be made by one whose high rank and unspot­ ted character, and whose experience and knowledge in Parliament, will give to it the utmost weight and authori­ ty; and where will that character, so necessary at this conjuncture, be so universally acknowledged as in Lord Strange?^ According to Wilkes, Grenville needed all the support he could get: The report of Saturday was that Mr. George GrenvilleTs

^ Grenville Papers, vol. ii, p. 152, Wilkes to Temple, October 1, 1765. 2 Ibid., vol. ii, p. 155.

148 heart.failed him, and that fresh overtures would soon he made.I * Not only did the Grenville Government lack the general confidence, hut Wilkes himself was declining in popular favor. A movement had been put on foot to raise a popular subscription for Wilkes to defray the costs of the impending trial.

But

since the popularity for Wilkes was not based on a regard for him personally, but only insomuch as he was one of the leaders against the Government, the subscription fizzled out.

Wilkes,

though disappointed, maintained his devotion to the public. Your Lordship will see how little that same public which bore me so triumphant, can be trusted;.. .yet though the public fail me, I will never be wanting to them...2 As instances of the character of the Government1s attack against Wilkes, beginning at the end of October, his every movement was spied upon,

•2

and his mail was consistently opened.

But what was worse, the Government stooped from the prosecution of Wilkes on purely legal grounds to the consideration of the morality of some of his writings other than the famous f!No. 45” of the North Briton.

Among these writings were two rather

^ Grenville Papers, vol. ii, p. 138, October 18, 1763. 2 Ibid.. vol. ii, p. 138.

s See ibid., vol. ii, pp. 154 ff., for detailed re­ ports made to the Secretaries of State.

149 pornographic pieces called the Veni Creator and the Essay on Woman,

the latter of .which Wilkes attributed to the Bishop

of Gloucester, who had written the notes to Pope*s Essay on Man*

The Government actually considered bringing this "Essay11

before Parliament nas a blasphemous and impious work." When Parliament opened on the 15th of November, proceed­ ings were opened immediately against Wilkes.

The "No. 45"

of the North Briton was voted "a false, scandalous, and se­ ditious l i b e l . R e g a r d i n g the poems, the Veni Creator and the Essay on Woman were voted by the House of Lords a breach of privilege, and a "scandalous, obscene, and impious libel." Two days later the Lord presented an Address to the King, de­ manding that Wilkes be prosecuted for b l a s p h e m y . ^ That the King had expected Wilkes to cower and recant is indicated when he wrote to Grenville on the day that Parlia­ ment opened: ....the continuation of Wilkes* impudence is amazing, when his ruin is so near...3 But Wilkes far from recanted.

He continued to publish the

North Briton, and continued to make his attacks against the

Parliamentary History, vol. xv, pp. 1554-60. 2 Walpole, Memoirs of George III, vol. i, pp. 309-12. 3 Grenville Papers. vol. ii, p. 160.

150 Government.

On Saturday, November 12, he abused not only the

Ministers, but also the late Lord Egremont who had passed away only three months before.

The King made a revealing observa­

tion about this edition when on the following Monday he

spoke

with Grenville in the Closet: The King mentioned with great indignation to Mr. Grenville the abusive North Briton published the Saturday before; expressed great abhorrence of the scandalous manner in which Lord Egremont was treated in it, but said he could not help making one observation— vix., that the abuse was entirely levelled at Lord Egremont, Lord Northumber­ land, and Mr. Grenville, with scarce a word against Lord Halifax.1 The inference the King seems to draw is that Lord Halifax, the Secretary who had ordered the general warrant, might bear v/atching, or that an attempt was being made to win him away from the Government. One of the most absurd features of the Wilkes trial was that the prosecution was placed in the hands of Lord Sandwich, who as a fellow-member of the notorious Medmenham Brotherhood, whs Just as profligate as Wilkes himself, a fact which was generally known.

Under these circumstances, the trial of

Wilkes was in one way regarded as a farce, although the Govern­ ment pushed the proceedings with the utmost gravity. Another factor which played in Ifilkes* favor was the duel with Mr. Martin.

Martin, who had been a Secretary of State

1 Grenville Papers, vol. ii, "Diary,t! November 14, 1763.

151 under Lord Bute, and Wilkes had clashed during the debate in the House of Commons.

As a result of the duel Ifilkes was

seriously wounded, and when it was learned that Martin had been practicing for eight months with the pistol (Martin had both offered the challenge and chosen the weapon), it looked like a conspiracy on the part of the Government to get Wilkes out of the way.

In turn, Wilkes magnanimously tried to

shield Martin from the ,?consequences of the duel, which was a strong proof of the genuine kindness of his nature, and added not a little to his popularity. During the month of November the debates on the Wilkes affair frequently lasted until early in the morning.

From

the beginning there was an incipient rebellion against the government, led by General Conway, Colonel Barre, and later, Mr. Calcraft.

The tension surrounding the whole affair, and

the offense taken by the King against those who opposed the Government is indicated when several men were eventually dis­ missed from civil and military positions. Early in December, Parliament ordered that the "No. 45" of the North Briton should be publicly burned by the common hangman.

While the order was being carried out riots occur­

red and a crowd tried to prevent the burning.

The King re­

acted as might be expected, but there was considerable dis-

3- Lecky, o|>. cit.. vol. iii, p. 78. mentary History, vol. xv, pp. 1557-59.

See also Parlia­

152 agreement among the members of the Government as to what should be the official ministerial reaction.

General Townsend

wrote vengefully to Grenville: Having heard of the gambols of the City (referring to the riots) upon the order of the House of Commons, I suppose you will acquaint the House therewith tomorrow, and have at least some proper proceedings thereon. I must offer myself for this breach of public decency, government, and everything that ought to be and must be maintained. I will not move without concert of Government, but I hope it will not be delayed or lowered.l While the Lord Chancellor Hardwicke and Lord Mansfield advised that no drastic action be taken, Mr. Grenville ,fdif­ fered totally from them, said the affront to the whole Legis­ lature was too great to be submitted to, and that means must be taken to show it was so. p opinion... ”

The King readily adopted this

The Duke of Bedford was outraged ”at the conduct of the mob, and full of desire that resentment might be shown upon it.”

Bedford blamed the Mayor and the Magistracy of the City

of London which had sympathized with, if not openly supported, the cause of Wilkes.

The Chancellor and Lord Mansfield, how­

ever, were less belligerent and it looked as though there

■** Grenville Papers. vol. ii,.pp. 175-76. 2 Ibid., Vol. ii, ”Diary,” December 4, 1765.

153 might he a break among the friends of the Government.***

To

Grenville it seemed that the most important issue was not the vindication of Parliament* but the holding of his Govern­ ment together.

The Duke of Bedford was so "warm11 in his dis­

position to blame the City of London* and the Chancellor and Mansfield were so passive in this regard, that Grenville was afraid they might fIoffend the Duke of Bedford."^ But the people were "warm" too* and one of the mob which milled about before the House of Commons was heard to say: "...we: have nothing to fear* the Duke of Cumberland and Lord Temple are with us." On the other hand, neither the King nor Mr. Grenville was willing to risk the further displeasure of the City: Mr. Grenville was not for urging the blame upon the Mayor* and the King was strongly against anything that might exasperate the City. The House of Commons pretty much followed this idea.^The net result of the incident was* that Grenville* fear­ ing a break in the Government on the one hand, and further opposition from the City on the .other*, was left in a dilemma

** Grenville Papers* vol. ii* p. 235. ^ Ibid.. vol. ii, p.

235.

3 Ibid.. vol. ii, p.

235.

4 Ibid.. vol. Ii, p.

235.

154 in which he could not prevent the things which he tried to avoid, nor did he accomplish the things he so much desired* The Government under these circumstances could not help but be further weakened. Late in December Wilkes went to France to recuperate from his wound, which caused Grenville to wonder whether he would be back in England in time for his trial on January 19th.1 In spite of the fact that Wilkes was very slow in recovering, and against the advice of two physicians who said he should not travel, Wilkes was ordered to return to England.

On the

19th of January, 1764, Wilkes was expelled from the House of Commons to the "satisfaction1? of the King and Grenville. The latter wrote on this occasion: We have got rid of Mr. Wilkes,who was expelled with only one negative vote, and who will find, too late, how much too far he has gone.s On February 21st, Wilkes was tried and found guilty in the Court of the King’s Bench "for reprinting the "No. 45."^ And since Wilkes did not appear for sentence, he was out-

1 Grenville Papers. vol. ii, p. 187, Grenvilie to Earl of Hertford, December 26, 1763. ^ Ibid.. vol. ii, pp. 258-59, Grenville to Earl of Hertford, January 28, 1764. ^ Wilkes had reprinted and bound all editions of the North Briton, as well as the Essay on Woman.

155 | lawed, and his suit against Lord Halifax, the orderer of the general warrant, was dropped. The Wilkes affair was unfortunate not only for Wilkes himself, but for the Administration which Grenville tried so desperately to hold together. people

Behind the whole business the

believed was the omnipresent hand of Lord Bute.

the duel between Wilkes

After

and Martin, Bute was hung ineffigy

and publicly ridiculed.'*’ ,TThe hypocrisy, the impudence, the folly of the part of Lord Sandwich (the leader of the prose­ cution) excited universal d e r i s i o n . A s far as Mr. Grenville himself was concerned, the incident revealed that he lacked one of the most important requirements of a statesman, n...the power of calculating the effect of a measure upon opinion.0^ Public animosity against the Administration continued great; there was an increasing tendency to riot,tT and the ”libelsft against the King, the Princess Dowager, and the Ministry grew in number and violence.4

1 Lecky, pp. cit.. vol. iii, p. 78. £

Ibid.. vol. iii, p. 79.

^

Ibid.. vol. iii, p. 81,

4 During the year 1764, 200 11informations” were filed against printers, whereas during the 33 prior years there had been no prosecutions of the press. (Lecky, op., cit.. vol. .iii, p. 82. See also Walpole, Memoirs of George III, vol. ii, p. 15.

156 s But not the least of the evils was the divisions in the Government and the dismissal of its opponents subsequent to the trial.

Grenville constantly urged temperance on the part

of the King, but His Majesty had made the matter a personal issue, and any opposition to the Government’s effort to con­ vict Wilkes was regarded by the King'as a personal insult to which he could not in honor acquiesce. Regarding the dismissals mentioned above, a General Con­ way was one of the more prominent figures who was deprived of his office, which was the leadership of a regiment in the Army.

Why ConY/ay should have been dismissed from such a post

because he opposed the Wilkes banishment can be explained only by the King’s vindictiveness when he wrote to Grenville: '...my nature ever inclines me to be acquainted with who are my true, and who my false, friends; that latter I think worse than open enemies? Firmness and resolution must now be shown, and no one’s friend saved who has dared to fly off; this alone can restore order, and save this country from anarchy; by dismissing, I mean not till the question is decided, but I hope in a fortnight that those who have deserted may feel that I am not to be neglected unpunished.^Eventually the "question” was "decided," and Conway was dismissed, along with several others.

The effectiveness of

these dismissals is illustrated by the fact that they threw such a scare into the opposition that for at least a year they hardly dared to print a word.

John Almon, a prominent pub-

^ Grenville Pacers, vol. ii, p. 267.

157 lisher of the time, devised a scheme for an opposition pub­ lication, but although Walpole "approved of the scheme, said it was absolutely necessary," he insisted that, .••the leaders who are to be benefited by it will dis­ approve of it, and what can be done without them; upon the very first scrape you get into (meaning me as a publisher) the leaders will immediately disavow it. He enforced this prediction with arguments which were too convincing to be resisted, and he concluded with the example of Mr. Wilkes; therefore he excused himself from assisting, and said that he was disheartened by the languor which appeared in those who, as leaders, ought to show an encouraging spirit. Good Godt said he, two or three times, did ever anybody see an Opposition act­ ing on the defensive before?-*For a man of Walpole*s temperament (who might be classed as a professional critic) to be silenced indicated how thoroughly the King had saved "this country from anarchy." The debates on the legality of the general warrants con­ tinued until well into 1765.

It was a bitter controversy

which made the King and the Government many enemies.

As time

went on the King was impressed with the amount of disaffection among the political leaders of England, as v/ell as the public, and blamed the dismissals upon his ministers, who, he said, had forced him to do it."

p

It is almost impossible to establish guilt in the whole

^ Grenville Papers. vol. ii, pp. 445-46, John Almon to Lord Temple, November 1 2 , 1764. ^ Walpole, Memoirs of George III, vol. i, p. 403.

158 affair, but if Grenville was the one who 11forced1* the King to do it, he eventually had the opportunity to atone for his action.

For in February, 1769, almost four years after Gren­

ville was dismissed from office, John Wilkes was again up for trial before Parliament for a verbal attack against a Secretary of State.

On this occasion Grenville did not equivocate, and

in a long speech before the House of Commons he bitterly attacked the House for. the abuse of its power. Thus we are to add hypocrisy to violence, and artifice to oppression, not remembering that falsehood and dis­ simulation are only the wrong sides of good sense and ability, which fools put on, and think they wear the robe of wisdom. If the House of Commons shall suffer themselves to be made the instruments, in such hands, to carry such a plan into execution, they will fall into the lowest state of humiliation and contempt. An individual indeed may exempt himself from the disgrace attending it, but the dishonour and odium of it will cleave to that assembly, which ought to be the constant object of public reverence and affection. Although Grenville1s speech did not save Wilkes from his second banishment, it did help to clarify the former1s true position, once he was free from the pressure of politics by which he had no doubt been partially restrained \vhile he was Prime Minister. The Wilkes affair, and the debates on the general warrants serve to illustrate the character of English political life in the early years of George III.

Grenville to a large extent

was true to the characterization, and like George III, suffered

Parliamentary History, vol. xvi, February 3, 1769. For a fuller text of this speech, see Appendix III, p. vi.

from the consequences of it.

For the Wilkes affair set the

general tone of his entire administration, an administration which typified the last stand of royal prerogative against the fuller development of constitutional government.

CHAPTER VII EARLY NEGOTIATIONS AGAINST THE GRENVILLE GOVERNMENT

When George Grenville became Prime Minister he did so with the express purpose in mind of preventing the Govern­ ment from falling into the hands of the Whigs. had at one time been a member of the Whig Party.

He himself But from

the time he first entered Parliament until his Prime Mini­ stership he gradually drifted farther away from not only- the policies of the party, but also from the important members as well. In the very beginning he had compromised his relations with Mr. Pelham because of his adherence to William Pitt and his own brother, Lord Temple.

Furthermore, he quarreled with

Mr. Pelham because he ws,s not promoted to the positions he had been promised.

Later, upon the death of Mr. Pelham, when

the Duke of Newcastle came to power, Grenville took office while Pitt and Fox joined in opposition to the Government. Bat in order to sooth the feelings of Pitt, Grenville, though in office, worked with Pitt in opposing the Administra­ tion.

And when Pitt and Temple were dismissed from office,

161 Grenville resigned only for their sake. The factor which completed the break between Grenville and the Whig party was his separation from Lord Temple and Pitt.

Grenville, no doubt, would have been willing to work

with them on almost any lines they chose, for he had more than once proved himself so.

But no matter how hard he tried to

make himself amenable to their wishes he was very seldom suc­ cessful.

Consequently, there was nothing left for him to do

but to launch out upon his own and abandon the political union which had brought him nothing but disappointment. There were several factors in Grenvillefs favor when he finally became Prime Minister.

He had been one of the ori­

ginal members of the union with Leicester House before George III came to the throne.

Except for his innocuous opposition

to the peace, he had never been obnoxious to the King.

His

impeccable character, his connection with Lord Bute, his separation from the Whigs, were all commendable factors to George III.

He possessed "eminent” business ability, was

"industrious,” "methodical," and held an unusual "contempt ^for popularity."'*' In view of the circumstances under which Grenville came to power, as far as the King and Lord Bute were concerned, a better man could hardly have been found, and Lord Bute might

1 Lecky, op. cit.. vol. iii, passim.

162 well write to Grenville, ”1 still continue to wish for you preferable to other arrangements,”*** for Grenville was chosen to be a tool of Lord Bute and the King. ‘ But Grenville had plans of his own, for he also loved power, and when he wrote that he took office ”to prevent any undue and unwarrantable force being put upon the Crown, that ”undue and unwarrantable force” could mean persons like Lord Bute just as much as it could the Whig Party.

And it was

not long before the King and Lord Bute began to realize that they had picked the wrong man. In the middle of July, 1763— three months after Gren­ ville1s appointment— the King began negotiations for new men in the Government.

He suggested to Grenville the appointment

of the Duke of Newcastle to an office, which Grenville, Lord Egremont and Lord Halifax all opposed.

About the same time

the King requested that Lord Hardwicke should assume the of­ fice of President of the Council.

Hardwicke refused because

he did not want to enter the Government without the Duke of Newcastle.

But the King was so desirous of the services of

Hardwicke that he gave him ten days in which to make his

^ See sunra. p. 128. Grenville Papers, vol. ii, Grenville to Lord Strange, September 3, 1763.

163 final decision* It was immediately obvious to Grenville what the motives of the King were in this move, for in a letter to Lord Egre­ mont dated August 4th, he mentioned a lack of confidence from the King, and "evident marks of that superior Influence," Lord Bute: If all the circumstances of^this great alteration in Government shall continue to be concealed from us, the complaint of want of confidence and communication will be still much stronger than it is, that marks of that superior influence (Lord Bute) still more evident, and our conduct, will stand, if possible, upon better ground* Then Grenville goes on to suggest that they do not resign, for such a move would give the King and those working with him the opportunity they desire of forming a new Government. In addition to the overtures to Lord Halifax and the Duke of Newcastle, the King was also sounding out the Duke of Bed­ ford.

On the 6th of August, Lord Egremont wrote to Grenville

saying that he did not think that anything had come as yet of the negotiations with Bedford, nor did he believe that any advances had been made to Pitt or Lord Temple.

But he con­

cluded his letter by saying: ...I think nothing will make the fluctuating mind of the chief spring (Bute) of all this confusion resolve to do fairly by us, but absolute necessity and fear; most probably when It will be too late.2

^ Grenville Papers, vol. ii, p. 87. 2 Ibid., vol. ii, p. 89.

164 Although it is uncertain whether at the time Egremont wrote advances already had been made to Pitt and Temple, never­ theless, Egremont anticipated what was to happen, for on the 10th of August, Mr. Calcraft, who, along with Lord Shelburne, was the agent of Lord Bute, wrote to Lord Temple asking him how he might get in touch with Mr. Pitt with the proposition that he enter the Government.^

Five days later, on the 15th,

Mr. Calcraft held an interview with Mr. Pitt which lasted for three hours.^

The Duke of Bedford was also interested in

this transaction, but Pitt declared that he would not accept office if he must work with the Duke,^ and unless he cotild bring the whole Whig party in with him.^ In the midst of this confusion, Grenville was called suddenly to the King on the gist of August, who told Grenville that he had no desire to change any of his Ministers, that he liked them all, and that he intended to follow Grenvillefs advice.

It was on his way home from this talk with the King

that Grenville stopped by to tell Lord Egremont of this con-

^ Grenville Papers, vol. ii, p. 89. ^ Bedford Correspondence. vol. iii, p. £36. S Grenville Papers, vol. ii, "Diary,” September 7, 1763. 4 Ibid.. vol. ii, p. 90, n.

165 versation and learned that he had been stricken with apoplexy. Egremont died later that night. Two days later Lord Halifax and Grenville were interviewed by the King.

One of the strongest persons in the Government

was gone, and something must be done to restore the weakened Government.

Lord Halifax and Grenville told the King that he

had three choices:

first, that he strengthen the hands of

his present ministers; second, that he "mingle them with a coalition of the other party;" third, that he "throw the government entirely into the hands of Mr. Pitt."^* According to the notation Grenville made in his diary on this day, "The king said the last was what he never could do."^ The next day the King told Lord Halifax that the Duke ofBed­ ford said the Kingfs government could not stand, andthat had suggested to the King that he summon Mr. Pitt.

he

The King

refused.3 On this very day, hov/ever, Lord Bute saw Mr. Pitt and the latter outlined the basis on which he would come into the Government, and said that if the King could not agree to this,

^ Grenville Papers, vol. ii, "Diary," August 25, 1765. 2 Ibid..

vol. ii, "Diary," August 25, 1765.

3 Ibid.,

vol. ii, "Diary," August 24, 1765.

166 "he had better not send for him.”

Bat to bring this long

series of contradictions to a close, on the following day, the 25th, the King told Grenville of his intention of calling in Mr. Pitt. Grenville remonstrated with the King, and reminded him of his previous determination not to call Mr. Pitt, and at the King’s request, Grenville "went over all his former arguments against calling Pitt, and said he saw nothing which would war­ rant such a sacrifice.

But the King was still determined to

do so."2 By this time Grenville seems to have despaired of getting anywhere with the King, and considered the possibility of re­ signing.

But on the day following the above interview, Lord

Halifax suggested that such a move might be unwise: ...I cannot go with ease out of town without telling you that I cannot agree in opinion that it would be right to ask the King to-morrow whether you should, or should not, go on with your Treasury business; it would look, I think, too much like asking your discharge, and bear the appear­ ance of ill humour. As to myself, I shall go on with the business of both Secretaries’ offices, ;just as if nothing new had happened.3 Grenville followed Halifax’s advice.

The next day Gren-

^ Grenville Papers, vol. ii, "Diary," August 24, 1763. 2 Ibid.. vol. ii, "Diary," August 25, 1763. 3 Ibid., vol. ii, Halifax to Grenville, August 26, 1763, p. 92.

167 ville saw the King after waiting two hours while the repre­ sentatives of Mr* Pitt were being interviewed.

The King was

T

"flustered," and Grenville went on from where he left off the day before, but got nowhere, and after only twenty minutes the King said, ftGood morrow, Mr. Grenville,11 a phrase which Gren­ ville says the King had never used to him before.^

Although

Grenville learned nothing as to the progress of the negotiation with Mr. Pitt, in writing of this interview to Lord Halifax he expressed the belief that "the plains for taking Pitt into government had been fully agreed upon,"2 that he believed that "carte blanche" had been offered Mr. Pitt.^ In the meantime, Mr. Elliot and Mr. Jenkinson (the latter of whom had at one time been Lord Bute’s Under Secretary), who were mutual friends of Lord Bute and Mr. Grenville, had appar­ ently remonstrated with Lord Bute for recommending Pitt to the King.

For Lord Bute was "terrified by the consequences of the

action he has urged the King to take,"4 and his timidity forced him to persuade the King to break off his treating with Mr. Pitt.

1 Grenville Papers, vol. ii, "Diary," August 27, 1763. 2 Ibid... vol. ii, p. 93, Grenville to Halifax, August 27, 1763. S Ibid.. vol. ii, Grenville to Halifax, pp. 95-96. 4 Ibid., vol. ii, "Diary," August 28, 1763.

168 This occurred after everything *apparently had been settled with Pitt the day before regarding his taking office. In any case, the King told Grenville that he had seen Mr. Pitt, that^Mr. Pitt had demanded "that his whole party should come into Government as he was too old and feeble to take the entire leadership, and that he needed the support of his f o l l o w e r s . T h e King told Grenville further that he could not accede to these demands, and asked him if he would continue to lead the Government.

Grenville said he would, but that he

was opposed to any 11subversive Influence*' being placed upon the King against those the King had chosen to serve him.

2

After Grenville left this meeting he wrote a note to Lord Halifax, saying, "A new scene had opened in consequenceof

the

•z

extraordinary terms demanded yesterday.*1

But Halifax, appar­

ently not entirely convinced, was in favor of launching an offensive against Mr. Pitt.

He suggested that they try to find

out if the extreme demands of Mr. Pitt had the full support of the Duke of Newcastle, Lord Hardwicke, and the Duke of Devon­ shire, so that if they did not, "...we may break the opposi­ tion and leave those worthy gentlemen, Lord Temple, Mr. Pitt,

^ Grenville Papers, vol. ii, "Diary," August 28, 1763. 2 Ibid.« loc. cit. 3 Ibid.. vol. ii, p. 97, August 28,

1763.

169

I

and their attached friends, in the lurch*"

But he ends by

saying that he did not believe that they would have much suc­ cess.^ How it was on Saturday, the 27th, that Grenville had been so hastily "bowed out" of the King's presence, and he had learned that arrangements for Mr. Pitt's accession had been completed.

On the following Monday, the 29th, Mr. Pitt was

supposed to see the King again in order to make last minute adjustments.

But on Sunday the sudden retraction of Lord

Bute had persuaded the King to end the negotiations, and now the King was faced with the embarrassment of telling Mr. Pitt that he had changed his mind. In order to ease the situation, the King sent a Mr. Beckford, one of the negotiators with Pitt, to tell Pitt that his demands were too high, and that the negotiations could not go on.

But the King still had to see Pitt. On Monday, the 29th, at eight o'clock in the evening,

Grenville went to see the King.

His Majesty told Grenville

that he had seen Pitt, that he had raised his demands,

P

and

^ Ibid.. vol. Ii, p. 98, Halifax to Grenville, August 29, 1763. 2 There is reason to believe that the King was trying to find an excuse for his sudden change of mind, at least for Grenville's sake. That Pitt and his followers were sure everything had been settled is Indicated by the fact that on

170 )

i

that they were such l,as he could by no means comply with.”*1The King then again requested that Grenville would take the Government and gave him the ”fullest assurance of his support. At the same time he read to Mr. Grenville a letter he had re­ ceived from Lord Bute in which Grenville was highly praised, and showed ’’the necessity of his own retreat, for the reasons of nationality, unpopularity, etc., etc.”*5 Mr. Grenville did not learn until about the 6th of Sep­ tember that Lord Bute had begun the negotiations with Pitt through Lord Shelburne and Mr. Calcraft,^ and not until the 16th of October that Bute was not entirely sincere in the ex­ pressions he made in the above letter.

For Mr. Gilbert Elliot,

the 6th of September Wilkes had written to Lord Temple from Paris telling him how happy all the Englishmen there were at the ’’entire change of the Ministry, and the restoration of your ....Lordship and the Whigs.” Another indication to this effect is that the Pitt party was apparently mystified as to why the King changed his mind, for on September 11, 1763, Mr. Charles Townshend wrote to Lord Temple, saying that the negotiations with Mr. Pitt ’’...did not break upon a real objection, to the extend of nature of the terms and changes suggested by Mr. Pitt.” (Grenville Papers. vol. ii, p. 121.) The inference one is tempt­ ed to draw is that the King was anxious that Grenville should not know that Lord Bute had had any part in thematter. ^ Ibid., vol. ii, ’’Diary,” August 29, 1765. 2 Ibid..

’’Diary,” August 29, 1765.

3 Ibid.,

’’Diary,” August 29, 1765.

4 Ibid.. ’’Diary,” September 6, 1763.

the mutual friend of Bute and Grenville, told the latter that the very day the King read the letter to Grenville, Lord Bute told Mr. Beckford how sorry he was that the negotiations with Mr. Pitt had failed, and that things might still work themsleves out if Mr. Pitt would lessen his demands,^ and when Mr. Beckford told Pitt of this, Mr. Pitt refused to have any­ thing further to do with it.

Grenville observes in his diary

that "this extraordinary offer was,made by Lord Bute after the King had told Mr. Grenville that he looked upon the ne-

p

gotiations with Pitt as over.l,fo As a sequel to these strange events Grenville, once more confident of His Majesty*s favor, wrote a letter (September 3, 1763) to Lord Strange,^ reviewing in full the recent negotia­ tions, and explaining why they broke down.

Since the letter

in some parts is so characteristically devoid of insight, and reveals to a certain extent Grenvillefs naivete, I include the greater part of it here: His Majesty1s intention in sending for Mr. Pitt, and the proposition which he made, was to dispose of the office of Lord President, and that of Secretary of State, vacant by the

^ Grenville Papers, vol. ii, "Diary," August 29, 1763. ® Ibid., vol. ii, "Diary," August 29, 1763. ® Grenville wrote similar letters to the Marquis of Gran­ by, the Duke of Leeds, Sir John Phillips, and Lord Egmont.

172 i .

T

unhappy loss of my friend and brother, Lord Egremont, in a manner that might best contribute to the general satisfaction, and to take such farther arrangements as could be made agreeable to the parties concerned in them# At the same time the King declared that he would never consent to any proposal that was inconsistent with his honour in regard to the measure which he had followed, or to the protection of all those whose conduct towards him he had reason to approve#2 (I own that I did not believe that this step thus made would be attended with good consequences to the King’s service, and therefore when it was communicated to me I advised against it, for the reasons which I will explain to your Lordship when we meet, although I earnestly desire that no per­ sonal or private consideration of mine should be inter­ posed to stop a measure which His Majesty was .told would be for the public good# Lord Halifax Joined with me in this advice, and we were sorry to see that the event ans­ wered our expectations#)s Mr# Pitt insisted on excluding all that had had any hand in the Peace, which he represented as dishonourable, dangerous, and criminal, although he did not intend to break it, but to ameliorate it in the execution# With regard to persons, he proposed to turn out almost every civil officer of rank in the King’s service, and to introduce all those who had engaged in the Opposition in their stead# The great extent and violence of these propositions,

Note that Lord Egremont did not die until the 21st of August, but that Mr. Pitt held a three hour interview with Mr# Calcraft, Lord Bute’s emissary, on the 15th. See supra. Furthermore, it is doubtful if Mr# Pitt at this time was be­ ing considered for the office of President of the Council because the King was still waiting for Lord Hardwicke’s reply to the request that he take this office. 2 Observe that the King had once acceded to the demands of Pitt, and that the negotiations broke not on the demands of Pitt, but at the recommendation of Lord Bute. See supra, p. 167. The words in parenthesis were not included in the letter to Lord Granby.

175 and of many others, the particulars of which cannot he comprised in this letter, (and the consideration of His Majesty1s honour in not abandoning those who had been called to his support, and of his conscience in not blam­ ing a measure so salutary as he judged that of the Peace to be for his people,) determined the King to reject such terms, and to put an entire end to this transaction. He was then pleased to send for me, and to express his desire that I should continue in the high post to which he had called me for carrying on his Government, and to declare in the most gracious terms his fixed and unalter­ able determination of supporting me to the utmost in the execution of it, and that he would upon no account submit to the force thus intended to be put upon him. I told His Majesty that I came into his service to preserve the constitution of my country, and to prevent any undue and unwarrantable force being put upon the Crown; that upon these principles I should continue to act, and would en­ deavor, as far as I was able, to assist the King in the difficulties he lay under; but that the success of the endeavour must depend upon the King himself, and upon the cordial union of all such as were attached to his service. As to the former, I had every possible reason to be fully convinced of His Majesty1s firm resolution, and with re­ gard to the latter, I cannot but believe that the neces­ sity of it is too evident/ and the reasons for it too cogent, to want any inf or cement.1 The question at once arises as to why Grenville should •have gone into this long discourse in. writing to these men. One explanation might be that he was offering a sincere ac­ count of what he believed actually had happened.

And this is

very likely, because he did not learn until three days after writing these letters, that is, on the 6th of September, ex­ actly when the negotiations with Mr. Pitt had begun.

\

Gren-

Grenville Papers, vol. ii, p. 104, Grenville to Lord Strange, September 5, 1763.

ville wrote in his diary: Mr. Grenville received intelligence in the evening that the negotiation with Mr. Pitt was begun by Lord Bute, through Lord Shelburne to Mr. Calcraft,1 and through him the Duke of Bedford was interested in it. It had been on foot since the Igth of August.% It is also probable, that since all or most of these men were in the House of Lords, he wished to demonstrate that the King had given him his full confidence in order that he (Grenville) might likewise gain their support.

The next day, September 4,

Grenville asked the Duke of Leeds to take the office of Presi­ dent of the Council, which he declined for "the motives of health and retirement..."

Later, Lord Strange was asked to

take the lead s,gainst Wilkes in the Lords,

and Lord Egmont

was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty.

Lord Granbjr was

closely allied with the Duke of Newcastle, and his recruit­ ment by Grenville is understandable.

Grenville was also suc­

cessful in gaining his full support.

From these subsequent

events, it appears that the latter explanation Is more plaus­ ible, as Grenville seems to have been repairing the damage to

^ See supra» p. 164. 2 Grenville Papers, vol. ii, "Diary," September 6, 1763. Italics are mine. ® See supra.

175 his administration in his attempt to regain or solidify the support of the powerful Tories. On the 2 n d of September, 1763, the King told Mr* Grenville that Lord Shelburne wished to resign as First Lord of Trade, not because he disliked the Administration, but because nhe finds the work of the Board disagreeable to him, and attended with too many difficulties, and subjecting him to too close an attendance.”

It was Lord Shelburne who, as a member of the

Grenville Government, had been one of the intermediaries with Mr. Pitt, which Grenville did not learn until the 6th of Sepp tember. On the 8th, Grenville talked with the King about this transaction, said he hoped that such a thing would never happen again, "that he put himself entirely upon His Majesty’s protec­ tion."

The King in reply said he would never fail him or for­

get his services.3 With the resignation of Lord Shelburne, there were now four offices to be filled.

Lord Egmont was made First Lord

of the Admiralty; Lord Hillsborough became First Lord of Trade in place of Lord Shelburne; Lord Sandwich was appointed Secre-

^ Grenville Papers. vol. ii, "Diary," September 2, 1763. 2 See supra, p. 170. 3 Grenville Papers. vol. ii, "Diary," Thursday, September 8, 1763.

176 tary of State to fill the vacancy left by Lord Egremont, and the Duke of Bedford took the office of President of the Coun­ cil. In regard to the Duke of Bedford, it was he who had been Lord Butefs representative during the peace negotiations. It was he who so thoroughly disgusted. Lord Egremont and Gren­ ville with his acceptance of the French demands.

And it was

Bedford who, except for Lord Bute, was probably the most un­ popular man in England after the Peace was signed. Grenville himself had opposed the character of the Peace, and, it will be remembered, if it had not been for him the peacemakers would have given away even more than they did. And in this lies one of Grenville's inconsistencies, for about four weeks after he became Prime Minister, Grenville wrote to the Duke of Bedford: ...I trust that your Grace on your return hither, will find this country much more sensible than it has yet seemed to be, of the advantages and blessings derived to them from the peace, and how they owe to your Grace's care and abilities in bringing that salutary measure to an honourable and happy conclusion.-*The most logical explanation of this about face, is that Grenville could now no longer indulge himself in the luxury of his idealism, for he was faced with the realistic task of forming a Government under very difficult circumstances.

^ Bedford Correspondence. vol. iiS., p. 230. are mine.

Italics

Grenville realized that the Duke of Bedford was the leader of a large group of followers which Grenville desperately needed. The irony of this about face was that Bedford had worked against Grenville throughout the summer of 1763, trying to get William Pitt into office, for it was he— Bedfdrd-^-who on the 24th of August had told the King that Grenville1s Govern­ ment could not stand, and recommended that the King send for Mr. Pitt. In spite of the fact that Grenville knew how Bedford had worked against him when he learned from Lord Halifax on the %

3rd of September that ’’no one is more zealously devoted to him (the King) than the Duke of Bedford, who approves the present in all its parts, and will give it every support in his power, both with his own activity, and that of his friends Grenville immediately sent an urgent request that the Duke of Bedford accept the office of President of the Council.g Duke of Bedford accepted.3

The

When the new Ministry dined to­

gether on the 9th, the Duke of Bedford !1made the strongest professions of support to the Kingfs affairs to Mr. Grenville.

Grenville Papers. vol. ii, p. 108, Sandwich to Gren­ ville, September 3, 1763. 2 Ibid., vol. ii, p. 109, Grenville to Bedford, September 5, the day after he was refused. 3 When the Duke of Bedford joined the Government, the

178 Lord Bute, who had resigned in April because of his flunpopularity,,! after meddling for five months in the affairs of government, decided to retire for good.

On the 31st of August,

Mr. Gilbert Elliot, a friend of both Bute and Grenville, wrote to the latter: I find him (Lord Bute) steady in his purpose of absolute retirement, and of not at all meddling in any business or arrangement: he also assured me he was determined to quit the Privy Purse, and I suggested to him that I supposed ^ that the King would consult with you about the filling-it. Mot only was Lord Bute to retire, but ,!He seems extremely de­ sirous that you be armed with every degree of power so necessary at this juncture.

o

The King, of course, was disappointed in. Bute's retire­ ment , and in conversations with Grenville on the 5th and 8th of September, he told Grenville that he did not think such a move was necessary.

But Grenville explained the necessity be­

cause of the. T!fermentfI against Lord Bute.

Opposition had this to say: flThey (the Government) triumph much in this last promotion; but, in my opinion, his Grace means to try a second negotiation, and that he accepts with that view, for he consents unwillingly, hates his colleagues, and ■despises the C a b i n e t . ( C h a r l e s Townshend to Lord Temple, September 11, 1763, ibid.. vol. ii, p. 121.) This letter to the Duke of Bedford is dated the 5th of September. In his diary Grenville says he wrote to the Duke on the 6th. In any case, the Duke accepted on the 7th of September. 1 Ibid.. vol. ii, p. 101. 2 Itid.. vol. ii, p. 101

179 At the dinner of the Ministers, September 9,

1

the Duke

of Bedford, who had been an accomplice of Lord Bute’s, was on the bandwagon maintaining the necessity of "Lord Bute’s, retreat, saying it must be immediately carried into execution; all the Ministry agree in the same, and press for some means to effect it.

Mr. Grenville agrees strongly in the necessity

of the measure, but wishes it could be brought about without force.At

the same time, Lord Bute was holding "the most

flattering language imaginable upon Mr. Grenville’s subject, to all who see him, with the most ardent wishes for his suc­ cess.5 On the 26th of September, the King informed Grenville that Lord Bute had resigned from the Privy Purse.

At this event,

the Opposition took occasion to label it an outright dismis­ sal.

Charles Townshend, who in a remarkable inconsistency

blew hot and cold on the Grenville Government, wrote to Lord Temple on the 3rd of October:

,!My letters are positive upon

4 the subject of Lord Bute’s dismission from the Privy Purse.11 This is not consistent with what Mr. Gilbert Elliot told Mr.

1 See supra, p. 177. 2 Grenville Papers. vol. ii, "Diary," September 9, 1763. 5 Ibid.. vol. ii, "Diary," September 9, 1763. 4 Ibid.. vol. ii, pp. 138-33.

180 Grenville in his letter of the 31st of August.-*-

Nor is it

consistent with the professions of loyalty and good wishes Lord Bute was making at this time on behalf of Grenville.^ On the day before Grenville received v/ord of Butefs resigna­ tion* Lord Sandwich (Secretary of State) showed Grenville a letter he had received from Lord Holland (Henry Fox) to the effect that ”he (Lord Holland)^ knew Lord Bute looked upon Lord Halifax, Lord Egremont, and Mr. G. as his enemies, for that at the time that ministry was formed, Lord Bute told him (Lord Holland) that he knew they had vowed his (Lord Butefs) ruin.”4

But there is no doubt that Grenville was

not one to urge that Lord Bute retain office. The feeling wrhich arose between the King and Mr. Gren­ ville as a result of Bute’s resignation is illustrated in their controversy over who should fill the vacancy.

The

King wanted Sir William Breton in the office, but Grenville objected on the grounds that he had been too close to Lord

See supra. 2 Lord Bute may have been sincere at this time in wish­ ing Grenville well,' but the intrigues in which he was involved later on overshadow his professions. ® Parentheses are mine. 4 Grenville Papers. vol. ii, "Diary,” September 23, 1763.

181 Bute personally* and ”that it would stand as strong to the 1 public* as if it were Lord Butefs Private Secretary.” Gren­ ville told the King that he frhad no view in desiring to hold it himself* except His Majesty’s service; that he meant nei­ ther pleasure nor profit by it.2

The King listened to Gren­

ville impatiently and then, ...claimed the right of disposing of an office so im­ mediately about his person; said that it had never be­ longed to the First Commissioner of the Treasury; that Lord Bute had held it as his immediate friend, and as a person to whom he had long been accustomed; thatin the last of these lights he meant to employ Sir Yfilliam, who had been known to him'since his childhood.® When Grenville persisted in his arguments that his appointment would serve tTto increase the jealousy and the reports indus­ triously spread about the short duration of the present Govern­ ment* the King replied* ”Good God! Mr. G.* am I to be suspected after all I have done?I he said* not by me, Sir* I cannot doubt your intentions; after all you have said to me, it would not become me to do so; but such is the present language and sus­ picion of the world.”4 ^The appointment of Sir William Breton

^ Grenville Papers, vol. ii* ”Diary*,f September 50* 1763. 2 Ibid.* vol. ii,

”Diary,” September 30, 1763.

3 Ibid.. "Diary,"

September 30, 1763.

4 Ibid.. vol. ii,

"Diary," September 30, 1763.

182 . was approved. CONCLUSION. Grenville became Prime Minister on April 10, 1763.

His

object in doing so, he said, was ”to prevent any undue or ■unwarrantable force” being placed on the King.

But 'in exe­

cuting his objective he demonstrated characteristics which displeased the King, and within three months after he assumed office the King began to take measures to replace him.

Many

individuals prominent in public life thought the Grenville Government was very unstable, and were outspoken in proclaim­ ing their belief it couldn’t last.

Among these was the Duke

of Bedford who recommended that the King call in Mr. Pitt. The King’s first attempt to get Pitt to take the govern­ ment failed, and by the 6th of August the King was requesting Grenville to continue.

But on the 24th the King told Grenville

that he intended to let Pitt form a government.

By the 27th

Pitt seems to have been given ”carte blanche.”

Then the ne­

gotiations were suddenly called off when Lord Bute became terrified ”by the consequences of the action he had urged the King to take.”

The King by way of explanation told Grenville

that Pitt had raised his demands to tfsuch as he could not comply with.”

The King urgently requested Grenville to con­

tinue in office, promising the "fullest assurance of his sup­ port.”

183 Grenville then proceeded to repair the damage to his political prestige, wrote a long letter of explanation to a number of the more powerful Lords, and took the Duke of Bed­ ford into the Government.

Lord Bute made known his intention

of "retiring11, wishing Grenville to "be armed with every degree of power so necessary at this Juncture."

All of the cabinet

ministers agreed that Bute should withdraw entirely from pub­ lic affairs.

Therefore Lord Bute resigned the office of Privy

Purse, at which the opposition took the opportunity of charg­ ing that he was deliberately ousted. The King’s continuing attachment to Lord Bute is demon­ strated when he insisted upon the appointment of Sir William Breton, a friend of Bute’s to fill the vacancy.

Grenville,

of course, objected, but the appointment was sustained.

The

?jithdrawal of Bute was a real loss to the King, personally and politically, and the King regretted it for many years.

I

CHAPTER VIII GRENVILLE’S FOREIGN AND FINANCIAL POLICIES

Mien Grenville became Prime Minister in 1763, the ruling houses of Great Britain had for almost three-quarters of a century had been more or less closely allied with one or more of the ruling families of the Continent.

The Revolu­

tion in 1689 had brought to the throne of England a member of the House of Orange from the Netherlands.

In Queen Anne

there was an interruption of the relationship with the Con­ tinent, but in 1714 the relationship was restored with the coming of the first Hanoverian King, George I. Although these blood ties did not always lead to full political and military cooperation between England and her European relatives, they usually were not without their in­ fluence on British foreign policy.

Walpole, of course, had

been opposed to the political designs of George II in his attempt to bolster his povrer on the Continent, and it was during this period of the late thirties and early forties that Grenville first expressed himself on the issue.

But

during a great part of the 18th century England spent a considerable sum of money in support of the friendly govern-

185 ments of Europe* Lord Bute may Be credited or discredited for putting into motion some divergent characteristics in British foreign poli­ cy, those which stemmed from the Peace of Paris in 1763.

For

some time before the end of the war Lord Bute had tried to bring the continental phase to a close.

He has been accused

of having carried on secret negotiations, the intent of which was to leave Prussia alone in the field against Austria after England and France had agreed to withdraw.

The hatred of

Frederick of Prussia, and his efforts to ruin the Bute govern­ ment have already been indicated.But by war of review, Prussia, through Lord Bute, now was deprived of the English subsidy she had enjoyed for some time.

Although the sum of money

was not a decisive factor, nevertheless, the withdrawal, and especially the manner in which it was done, served to alienate the Prussian King. Grenville continued to some extent the policy laid down by Lord Bute.

He did not, however, display the extreme re­

action of Lord Bute, for Grenville had opposed some of the measures of the Peace of Paris, especially those which had to do with giving back to France those possessions which England had obtained at a great sacrifice of men and wealth. Lord Bute, in order to circumvent Grenvillefs opposition to the Peace, called a council meeting while Grenville was ill, at which time the Peace was adopted.

186 The foreign policy of George Grenville was conditioned more by the problems of financial reconstruction which fol­ lowed a long and costly war than it was by tradition or de­ sign.

The indebtedness of England at the close of the war

was approximately 140 million pounds, a fact which tended to shape to a large extent both internal and external affairs. Grenville’s watchword was "economy and reform,11 a watchword which resounded throughout Europe, for we find that the Rus­ sian Ambassador, Woronzow, was sending "unfavorable reports to his own Court," complaining "particularly of Mr. Gren­ ville, whose economy would not suffer him to give any subsidy towards the election of the King of Poland."^* But Grenville’s policy was not wholly lacking in plan. Concerning the election of the King of Poland mentioned above, Grenville advised the King "to take no first part in regard to the Polish election, but to remain in such a state as should make him be courted as a neutral power by all the contending parties."2

Nor could Grenville be intimidated

any more from abroad than he could at home.

About this time

Prussia presented demands to England for the indemnification of her subjects relative to the late war, indicating that if

^ Grenville Papers, vol. ii, "Diary," December 17, 1763. 2 Ibid.. December 19, 1763.

187 they were not complied with it might endanger the safety of the Electorate of Hanover.

Even the King was offended at

Frederick, and almost decided to risk the consequences rather than ”to submit to so insolent a demand.”-*- The King and Gren­ ville were aided at this time by an overture made by the Aus­ trian Imperial Minister, Count de Seilern, who said that Aus­ tria was very much interested in restoring their former friend­ ship.

He told Lord Sandwich, Secretary of State, Tf...that if

the King of Prussia should attack the Electorate, the Court of Vienna would not see it with temper, and that they wished no­ thing so much as to return to the old system of friendship with England.”2 Exactly a year later Grenville had the opportunity to point out to the King how successful his policy In regard to Europe had been, and with what happy results to England. Grenville wrote in his diary: Mr. Grenville went to the King, to speak to him about drawing his Speech, and mentioning to His Majesty that it would be proper to take notice of the election of the King of the Romans, and the King of Poland: His Majesty from thence talked a great deal about the present situa­ tion in Europe. Mr. Grenville took occasion to observe to him how advantageous it had proved His Majesty* s hav­ ing stood entirely neuter, without the expense of a shil­ ling of money to bring about either of those desireable

I Grenville Papers. vol. ii, t!Diary,fT December 24, 1763. S Ibid., vol. ii, "Diary,” December 25, 1763.

188 events, and begged his Majesty to remember that it had ever been his advice to him to let his mediation and assistance be courted by all the powers of Europe, rather than offered; that this advice he gave him, both as to foreign affairs and those of his own kingdom, never to seek others, but to put himself in such a situation as should make him be sought; that it had been his opinion in regard to Prussia; it was equally so in regard to all the other Powers. The King said, he was perfectly convinced of the wisdom of this conduct, though another had been proposed to him in that very room (at the Queen1s House) by Mr. Pitt, who wanted to put him a la suite of the King of Prussia, and ....in mentioning the treaty with Russia, had said it ought to have been obtained through the mediation and interposition of the King of Prussia. Mr. Grenville said, the greatness of the King of Prussia’s situation could never be but temporary; that England and France, being the two greatest Powers of Europe, would ever be courted by Russia and Prussia, and in proportion as one got closer in alliance with France, it would throw the other into the scale of England. His Majesty seemed to ap­ prove extremely of this reasoning, entered into it very fully, and brought the instance of King William, who had been precisely in the station of being sought and applied to by all the Powers of Europe.^ The policy Grenville had successfully urged the King to pursue was that of maintaining the balance of power in Europe, a policy which was not new, nor was it to end with the Gren­ ville Administration. The primary concern of the Grenville Administration with France grew out of France’s obligations to England under the Peace of Paris.

Prior to the declaration of war, as well as

during the course of the conflict, England had taken a large number of French prisoners.

Under the provisions of the

1 Grenville Papers, vol. ii, "Diary," December 17, 1764

189 treaty, France was to reimburse England for the expense the latter had undergone in maintaining them.

But in June of 1764,

over a year after the end of hostilities, France had not even pretended to make a payment.

The reason repeatedly offered by

the French Ambassador, Count de Guerchy, was that the financial condition of his country made it absolutely impossible.

Gren­

ville and his ministers seemed to believe this to be a thin excuse, and they doubted even the good intentions of France. Early in June, 1764, in an interview with de Guerchy, Lord Sandwich tried to impress upon the former the serious­ ness of France’s obligation to England, that it was more than a matter of money, but a matter of the general European wel­ fare.

Sandwich, in a letter to Grenville, revealed what he

had told de Guerchy: I began by telling him that I thought the public tran­ quility depended upon a mutual confidence and friendly concurrence between our two Courts; that as we were the two great Powers of Europe, peace or war depended upon our measures, and that when the French Administration threw difficulties upon us, they acted equally against their own public and private interest; that civilities shown on one part, would claim civilities from the other side, but unless we helped each other reciprocally, a very few sinister events would throw things into confu­ sion; that upon the confidence we had in their sincerity the Parliament had been told more than once that the Powers with which we had been at war would faithfully execute the engagements they had contracted with us; and that unless we could make good those promises, the next session of Parliament would be an unpleasant one. He seemed much struck, and most thoroughly to enter into my reasoning; he repeated several times that I had abso­ lutely convinced him about the money to be paid for the maintenance of the French prisoners...He promised me,

190 in the most serious and solemn terms, that he would sup­ port this language with all the credit and ability he was master of, on his return to France...* This was the beginning of a long and tortuous negotiation which, in spite of the implied threat in Sandwich’s conversa­ tion with de Guerchy above, and in spite of de Guerel^s pro­ mise to do his best to settle the matter, it was almost an­ other year before it was brought to a close. On the 16th of July, 1764, Grenville had a talk with de Guerchy which lasted until one o ’clock in the morning, in which the latter tried to persuade Grenville to reduce the debt and to extend the payments.

But Grenville was adamant,

and in the following explains his position: Mr. Grenville strongly represented against the reason­ ableness of this proposition, stating the violation of the Treaty both in this and the other two articles of the payment of the Canada bills, and the demolition of Dunkirk, all expressly stipulated, and not one as yet performed; and would by no means listen to the very long term of fifteen years proposed by the Ambassador for the payment of the debt; but, on the contrary, insisted upon one or two as the longest term that could be allowed by England.^ Immediately after this conference, Grenville wrote to Lord Sandwich explaining in detail the French counter-proposals, which, because of their importance and relation to the

^ Grenville Papers, vol. ii, pp. 344-45, Sandwich to Grenville, June 6, 1764. 2 Ibid.. vol. ii, "Diary," July 16, 1764.

191 following negotiation, I set forth below: I have Just finished a long conference with M. de Guerchy, who has shown me the French account of ours and their prisoners of war. They allow upwards of 15,000,000 of livres, or 667,000 pounds sterling, to be due us upon the balance. They strike off 225,000 pounds sterling for prisoners taken before war was declared, 15,000 pounds for prisoners who were passengers, and 121,000 for articles about the prisoners not explained; and 115,000 pounds for English prisoners maintained by them. These sums make up 1,175,000 pounds sterling, the sum total of our account. I combated the first article of defalcation especially, and referred the whole to the Commissioners of the sick and wounded, but the most extraordinary part remains. He proposed, when these deductions were allowed, to pay the 15,000,000 livres in fifteen years. This I would not hear of, and I think it full as bad as refusing to pay it at all. He wants to have us allow of the great arti­ cle of deduction for prisoners taken before the war, and then for us .to propose a shorter term for the payment, which I declared and insisted strongly, that we had a right to have whatever was due paid at farthest in a year or two. \\% ran through all the bid argument about the prisoners taken before the war was declared, but neither of us were convinced.1 Count de Guerchy1s arithmetic was not convincing, at least to Grenville.

On the evening of the second day follow­

ing, de Guerchy came by appointment to see Grenville, Halifax and Sandwich, who made a "very rough remonstrance" to the Count.

It did not change de Guerchy1s mind, however, and he

"went so far as to say that France had not the money to satis­ fy the demand."^

1 Grenville Papers, vol. ii, pp. 590-91, Grenville to Sandwich, July 16, 1764. 2 Ibid., vol. ii, "Diary," July 18, 1764.

192 Mr. Grenville laughed at that, and advised him not to urge the Court of England too far, nor to punish it to extremities, for his Court would find us not inclined to bear beyond what was reasonable.1 The Count went on to say that the Duke of Bedford had given him reason to believe that the time might be extended, even to the point of five years, although the Count admitted that Bedford did not know if this would be acceptable to the King or the other ministers.

But ”The two secretaries and

Mr. Grenville absolutely disclaimed any such concession.” By this time, Grenville was becoming somewhat worried about France*s intentions, fearing the possibility of very unfortunate consequences if France pursued her present atti­ tude.

He revealed his anxiety when he wrote:

The disputes with France concerning the money due upon account of the prisoners and the Canada bills gave Mr. Grenville much uneasiness, seeing that Government in no disposition to fulfill the conditions on which the Peace was made, though, at the same time, he saw no like­ lihood of their being willing to start another war.2 On the 20th of July, Grenville wrote to the British Am­ bassador at Paris, the Earl of Hertford, explaining in con­ siderable detail the progress or absence of it in the negotiations with de Guerchy so far.

Much of this information

the Earl was already familiar with, but Grenville thought

^ Grenville Papers, vol. ii, "Diary,” July 18, 1764. 2 Ibid.. vol. ii, loc. cit.

195 it wise to review the whole matter with the idea of avail­ ing the English Ambassador of the full wishes of the English Court. Regarding de Guerchy*s refusal to pay for the support of prisoners taken before war was declared, Grenville had this to say to Hertford: We have always insisted, and, I think, rightly, that the commencement of hostilities is the commencement of war, even though there should be no declaration of war at all. That this has been laid down by the most eminent writers on the law of nations, and that the practice has been agreeable to it, and that France herself approved of it by attacking Minorca without a declaration of war.1 Grenville then goes on to examine further the counter­ proposals made by de Guerchy.

The following quotation con­

tains the French proposals: M. de Guerchy first named fifteen years, which would certainly amount to a refusal to pay it at all. The Treaty expressly provides that the prisoners shall be restored in six weeks at latest from the exchange of the Ratifications, *each Crown paving respectively the ad­ vances which shall have been made for their subsistence and maintainance, conformably to the receipts, stated accounts, and other authentic titles to be furnished on one side and on the other, and it is further stipulated that the execution of this article* shall be proceeded upon immediately after the exchange of the Ratifications. Is it possible to contend, after a year and a half already elapsed, and such large deductions insisted upon, that the demand of a number of years (I speak not now of fifteen, from which he himself departed, but of four or five years) can be deemed a just and fair performance

Grenville Papers, vol. ii, pp. 395 ff., Grenville to the Earl of Hertford, July 20, 1764.

194 of this article?1 Later in this letter to Hertford Grenville made reference to the Countfs statement that France simply could not make the payments.

To this Grenville explained that,

....we could not believe that France, if she were so re­ solved, could not pay 600,000 pounds or 700,000 pounds in a year or two, when Great Britain could raise above double that sum, in all probability, and in less time, for the payment of what we owed in Germany; and if there were any difficulties, that, after the great restitutions which had been so honourably performed on our part, they were, at least, as much bound to exert themselves for the pavment of what they should admit that they justly owed us.^ The seriousness with which Grenville regarded these defal­ cations of the French government is indicated as he continued: I do not look upon this in the light of a pecuniary trans­ action only; for, however that sum of money may be to us, it is far more important from the consideration of it as a test of the intentions of France in the performance of the stipulations of that Treaty; and if she breaks them in the first instance that comes before the public, there is scarce a man in this country who will rely upon their good faith in those which still remain unperformed; where­ as a fair and honourable conduct on this occasion would give a favourable impression on the whole.6 Grenville concludes this long letter by urging the Earl of Hertford to press these arguments very strongly at the

^ Ibid.. loc. cit. 2 Ibid.. vol. ii, pp. 395 ff., Grenville to the Earl of Hertford, July SO, 1764. 3 Ibid.. loc. cit.

195 French Court. On the 26th of July (1764) there was another meeting of the Cabinet at which the French debt was again discussed.

In

his diary of this day, Grenville states that there was some difference of opinion as "to the time required by the Court of France for the payment of the money, which Mr. Grenville would be no means suffer to exceed one year, or two at the most."

The Duke of Bedford still persisted in allowing

France five years, going so far as to say that "they would bring a fresh war upon themselves by insisting on a shorter time...n^

This piqued Grenvillefs ire, and he replied:

...that it was his opinion never to suffer France, after having been conquered, to speak to England in the terms of conquerors, and that he was persuaded that the way to avoid mischief was to hold a firm language to her; that he did not mean to drive her to extremities, nor to pro­ pose what was unfitting for her to -grant, .but that Eng­ land could never be justified in yielding to her in one demand after another; that the way to make her fulfill the conditions of the Peace was to keep her to them.s The council did agree to send a letter to the Earl of Hertford at Paris giving one year, or two years at the most, as the limit. One of the important factors which contributed to Gren-

^ Grenville Papers, vol. ii, "Diary,* July 26, 1764. 2 Ibid.. loc. cit. 3 Ibid.« loc. cit.

196 vllle,s difficulty in maintaining a firm position in regard to France was that apparently he was not supported in his stand either by the King or by the other ministers, at least as firmly as Grenville desired.

The King in his conversa­

tions with Grenville told him nto admit of no longer a term than two years at the utmost, but that a twelvemonth must be first proposed; but when he talked with the two Secretaries upon it, His Majesty allowed as far as three." Some of the ministers likewise weakened Grenville1s po­ sition, especially the two Secretaries of State, Lord Sand­ wich and Lord Halifax.

During the latter part of July Gren­

ville was at his country home, where "he had many proofs of the two Secretaries of State, but particularly Lord Halifax, holding language to the foreign Ministers much less firm than had been agreed upon between their Lordships and Mr. Grenville, and endeavouring to cast the odium of any strong measure upon him; Mr. Grenville took notice of this in his letter to Lord Halifax, who denied the fact."

The King,

too, was dissatisfied with the Secretaries, "greatly blaming their conduct towards Mr. Grenville, and concurring in senti-

1 Ibid.. loc. cit. ^ Ibid.« loc. cit.

197 ments with Mr. Grenville upon his foreign b u s i n e s s . L a t e r , on the 13th of August, nMr. Grenville had a warm remonstrance with Lord Halifax and Lord Sandwich; they both denied the charge, but Lord Halifax1 conduct and behaviour to him in general was very unsatisfactory.f!^ On the 28th of July, the Earl of Hertford wrote to Grenfille reporting the arrival of de Guerchy in Paris, and some of the details of the first conversation with him.

Hertford

explained: ♦..In this conversation, and from all I have heard of him, I just do him the justice to observe, that he seems well disposed to maintain harmony and peace'between the two nations...3 Hertford went on to explain how fully he had presented the reasoning of his own Government, n...to show the necessity of making to England, in a reasonable time, the payments of the expense of the prisoners..

.

In his conversation with

the French Foreign Minister, the Due de Praslin, Hertford

^ Ibid.. loc. cit. ^ Ibid. Note that the August 13th entry in the flDiaryw was made under the date, July 26th. Both entries were pro­ bably written at the same time. ® Grenville Papers, vol. ii, p. 410 ff., Hertford to Grenville, July 28, 1764. 4 Ibid.. vol. ii, p. 410 ff., Hertford to Grenville, July 26, 1764.

198 repeated his governments position, to which the Due replied, "that it was impossible to employ any argument on that head, of which he was not already sensible.11 But from there the French Foreign Ministers went into a long confessional, ex­

plaining that, The finances of the kingdom were in the utmost disorder as this was no secret, it was needless to disguise it to me; the State was vastly in arrear in almost every branch of administration; public credit was at a low ebb; the refractory humour of the Parliaments augmented their dif­ ficulties, and the immediate payment of such a sum as our balance would probably amount to, he believed, to be an absolute impossibility. But be assured, my Lord, con­ tinued he, that we are really sincere in our intentions, not only of making payment, but of making as prompt pay­ ment as the nature of things will admit of. You may see by my frankness in confessing our necessities, the sensi­ ble confusion which I feel in requiring delay, and which I would alleviate by laying before you the reasons of my request.1 But the Earl of Hertford, in Grenvillian fashion, was not very much impressed, and he still "continued to urge him..."

The

Due de Praslin told Hertford that he had already mentioned the matter in a Council meeting, and promised that he would do it again shortly. During the course of these negotiations there occurred two events which tended to further complicate the situation.

Both

events took place in the new world. According to one of the provisions of the Peace of Paris, English settlers were to be given the right to cut logwood in

* Ibid.. loc. cit.

199 the Bay of Honduras, a concession which had been forced from Spain.

In the summer of 1764, some English woodcutters were

driven away by the Spanish contrary to the stipulations of the Treaty. The second incident, which occurred about the same time, was the seizure of Turkfs Island, a small island in the West Indies, by a French squadron commanded by Count d fEstaing. The island was inhabited by English settlers. It was such an incident, added to the already strained relations between France and England that it gave Grenville cause for concern lest it lead to another conflagration. Spain was dilatory in returning a satisfactory reply to the British protests.

It was not 'until late in September that

word came from Spain regarding "...the orders sent to the Spanish officer at the Honduras, relating to the complaint made by our logwood-eutters, admitting our complaint, repri­ manding the officers, and restoring what they had taken, but not repairing the damages done."**-

Another example of Gren­

ville1s persistence is supplied when the Spanish Ambassador said he found "...the Secretaries of State much less tenacious than Mr. Grenville, who, he says, would lose all he has in the world rather than suffer diminution of the honour of the King

^ Grenville Pacers, vol. ii, "Diary," September 27, 1764.

200

his master, or of the commerce of the kingdom. The gravity with which Grenville regarded this seemingly insignificant matter is revealed when on the 31st of August he wrote to Lord Halifax: The more I consider the state of things in that part of the world, the more convinced I am that the squadron at Jamaica should be reinforced not only with two ships of the line, but with four or five ships of the line, as soon as possible* The sending of a small force may be attended with very great inconveniences, as it is possible that upon this alarm France and Spain may steal out two or three ships of the line, and it is of the highest importance to extinguish this spark of fire at once, lest it should kindle into a blaze, which probably may be the case, if our force, and that of France and Spain, shall be nearly equal in those seas*2 The Turk Island dispute with France was settled with less difficulty than the dispute with Spain*

On the 9th of Septem­

ber, 1764, Lord Halifax had received word that lfthe Court of France has consented to make restitution of Turkfs Island, to disavow any order given for that act of violence, and to make satisfaction and reparation for the damages sustained by it.5 The only factor which marred the settlement was France*s refusal to punish M* d*Estaing, who had given the orders, and

^ Grenville Papers, vol. ii, nDiary,” September 27, 1764. 2 Ibid** vol. ii, p. 435, Grenville to Sandwich, August 31, 1764. 5 Ibid* * vol. ii, p. 438, Grenville to the Duke of Bedford.

201

M. de Guiehen, who had executed them.^ The point to he made concerning these two episodes is that they seem to have stiffened Grenville’s resistence to any concession on the French debt, believing that a sign of weakness in any one of these things would be a wedge by which France could obtain further concessions, and thus extend the danger to their desire for peaceful relations. As the negotiations dragged on they began to wear on the humor of some of the ministers, especially Lord Halifax and Lord Sandwich.

The Duke of Bedford was frequently absent from

Cabinet meetings.

Lords Sandwich and Halifax refused peevishly

to give Mtheir sentiments, but rather receiving them from the other Lords present, particularly Lord Halifax, who merely held the pen to write down the minute, calling incessantly upon Mr. Grenville to dictate."

p

The peevishness of Sandwich and Halifax was also notice­ able to the King, who "...constantly complains of the two Secretaries of State, particularly Lord Halifax, whose eager­ ness and precipitation on the one hand, and inattention to his business on the other, highly displeases him."^

Halifax1

1 Ibid., p. 436, Halifax to Grenville, September 9, 1764. 2 Ibid., vol. ii, p. 514, "Diary," September 21, 1764. S Ibid.. vol. ii, p. 514, "Diary," September 22, 1764.

202

attitude seems to have been conditioned by his displeasure with Lord Hertford, whom he described as "cold and insuffi­ cient..." and wanted to have him recalled.

But the King and

Grenville concurred in their refusal to do so.

From the KjLngfs

standpoint, 11there are not among his servants too many people of decent and orderly characters$ that Lord Hertford is re­ spectable in that light, and therefore not lightly to be cast aside. The Duke of Bedford and Lord Chancellor Northington also complained to the King "of the deadness of Lord Halifax at Council,*1 who refused, as his position warranted, to take the initiative in these meetings, giving his opinions first and then asking the other Lords for theirs.g

At the same time,

the King **.. .expresses great approbation of Mr. Grenville1s conduct, talks to him with great confidence, and increases in good humour to him daily.**3

The situation finally reached

the place where the King wanted Grenville to have the sole responsibility in the affair. The King was desirous that Mr. Grenville should take the transaction with M. de Guerchy, relating to the pay-

^ Grenville Papers, vol. ii, p. 514, "Diary,” September 22, 1764. ^ Ibid., vol. ii, p. 515, "Diary,” September 26, 1764. 3 Ibid.. loc. cit.

203 I

ment or the money for the French prisoners, entirely into his hands, saying, at the same time, how sensible he was of Mr. Grenville1s assiduity in this business, compared to that of any other of his servants; and this being a ....business relating to money, it more properly belonged to him.1 If the successful termination of these drawn-out negotia­ tions was due to any one thing, Grenvillefs ^assiduity11 pro­ bably ranks first.

While Lord Halifax and Lord Sandwich were

worrying about such things as Chief Justice Mansfield1s fre­ quent visits with the King,2 Grenville was busy trying to solve the French problem.

Finally, in April of the following

year (1765), over two years after the peace, Grenville re­ ceived word "of M. de Guerchy1s promise to pay the money due to us from France in a few days...”*5 If Grenville was satisfied, all England could be satis­ fied, for there were few, if any others, who would have per­ sisted with the patience and energy he demonstrated in pursu­ ing France to the very end.

The affair was not an important

one, at least as far as the general public was concerned, although it could have become the basis for more serious pro-

^ Grenville Papers, vol. ii, p. 517, 1!Diary,n October 3, 1764. 2 Ibid.. vol. Ii, p. 521, "Diary," November 1, 1764.

® Ibid., vol. Ill, p. 19, Grenville to Halifax.

204 blems.

But it demonstrates tile character of Grenville, to

whom the meticulous precision of detail was the staff of life*

THE STAMP ACT Whatever were the policy and relationship Grenville held toward the European continent, they were largely obscured by the policy and relationship he held toward the British colo­ nies in America.

The infamy that ha One of Grenville1s first acts was to set in motion those laws which, already enacted, had fallen into disuse.

The

compromise with existing law was shared about equally between the colonial traders and the British administrators.

A system

of corruption had developed which was to the advantage of both parties.^*

Even the responsible authorities in England contri­

buted to the neglect of the American colonies.

During the

long administration of the Duke of Newcastle, the colonies had been left "in almost every respect absolutely to them­ selves. tf After Grenvillefs administration a Treasury offi­ cial is supposed to have said that "Grenville lost America because he read the American despatches, which none of his predecessors had done."2

Letters written by the Secretary

of State in charge of the colonies were repeatedly addressed "to the Governor of the Island of New England."^

Such ig­

norance and neglect were not uncommon when Grenville became First Lord of the Treasury. In order to effect reforms in the administration of the trade laws, Grenville wrote to the Commissioners of the Customs

1 See Beer, George L., British Colonial Policy. 17541765, chapter XI, "Reforms in the Administration of the Laws of Trade, 1765-1765." 2 In Lecky, op. cit.. vol. iv, p. 50. s Otis, Rights of the British Colonies Asserted. (3rd ed. 1766), p. 37, in Lecky, ibid.. vol. iv, p. 51.

207 in America, to learn how these1reforms could he most effect­ ively made.

His inquiry arose from the discovery that while

the revenue from the American colonies was between 1000 and 2000 pounds a year, the cost of collection was between 7000 and 8000 a year.***

The Commissioners in their replies stated

that the principal cause of this disparity, ....was the absence of the officers, who lived in England by leave of the Treasury, which they proposed should be recalled. This we complied with, and ordered them all to their duty, and the Commissioners of the Customs to pre­ sent others in the room of such as should not obey.^ Another reform initiated by Grenvillle was to re-invoke the Molasses Act of 1733, an Act which placed a duty of six­ pence a gallon on molasses and a duty of five shillings per cwt. on sugar when these commodities were imported into the British possessions from any foreign colonies.

During the

war some attempt had been made to enforce the law in order to check the 'trade with the French, but as the war drew to a close the efforts to enforce it were relaxed because of the opposition of the colonies.

1 Grenville Papers. vol. ii, p. 114, Grenville to Horace Walpole, September 8, 1763. g Ibid.. loc. cit. 3 Beer, op. cit.. p. 230. Beer states that, ”The Molas­ ses Act was diametrically opposed to the most fundamental in­ terests of the northern continental colonies, and consequently could not easily be enforced.”

208 In

i

1765 the Molasses Act was to expire, and the colonies'

appealed to the British Government that it not be renewed. But Grenville insisted upon its retention and enforcement, and while the duties on molasses were reduced by about onehalf, new duties were imposed upon many new commodities, among which were "coffee, pimento, French and East India goods, white sugar and indigo from foreign colonies, Spanish and Portugese wine, and wine from Madeira and the Azores..."*** Grenville proposed to plug another leak in the colonial revenue, a leak which took on the proportions of a major enterprise, that of smuggling.

Even during peacetime this

so-called illegal trade with British and foreign colonies in the West Indies was lucrative, but much more so during the period of the war.

The West Indies had become a profitable

market for the surplus agricultural products of the contin­ ental colonies, in exchange for which the continental colo­ nies received molasses.

The molasses was then converted into

rum, a commodity used for the purchase of slaves in Africa, and furs from the Indians on the American continent. procedure came to be called the triangular trade.2

1 Lecky, on. cit.. vol. iv, p. 55. 2 Beer, oj). cit.. p. 87.

This

j ,

209

Daring the war this illegal activity was enhanced by the fact that the French colonies were cut off from Europe by the British fleet, and were therefore willing to pay high prices for goods from the British colonies.

Many devices were used

to circumvent the legal restrictions against this trade, one of which was to send ships to the Indies under a so-called "flag of truce,” ostensibly for the purpose of exchanging prisoners, but actually for the purpose of transporting what the British regarded as contraband goods.

Governor Denny of

Pennsylvania is supposed to have "openly sold such passes. "3Dutch vessels also, under the protection of the French fleet, traded with the Indies, although the British were eventually successful in breaking this up, arguing that since France in peace time did not allow foreigners to trade with her colonies, the Dutch did not have the right to trade "opened to them only by the pressure of war."2

This doctrine was known as

the "Rule of 1756," and not only tended to break up the trade between Dutch and the French, but the trade between the Irish, American and Dutch as well. But these restrictions did not deter the wily traders for long.

Eventually, a depot was opened up at the Spanish city

^ Beer, on. cit.. p. 90. 2 Beer, op. cit. p .

94.

210

of Monte Crist! on the Island of Santo Domingo, on which there was also a French colony.

Monte Cristi was a port of no com­

mercial value in itself, but it became a vital link in the trade between the British colonies and the French.

The lat­

ter received suger and molasses in exchange for "provisions, war-like stores, British manufacturers and m o n e y . I t was estimated that in the year 1760 between 400-500 British colo­ nial vessels were loaded with French sugar and molasses at the port of Monte Cristi.2

But by 1761 the British navy

temporarily had done much to reduce the importance of this trade in spite of the fact that some of it persisted.

en

the Spanish entered the war in this year, the trade was re­ vived on a large scale.

Finally, because he lacked provi­

sions for his own troops on the American continent, Amherst had to declare an embargo on the trade with the Indies until he had obtained sufficient supplies from England. After the war, "The primary object of the colonial system was to develop the wealth and power of the Empire."^

The

goods of the colonies and the other country were to so com­ plement each other that there would be established "one great

•** Beer, op. cit.. p. 97. 2 Ibid., pp. 98-99. 3 Ibid., p. 193.

£11

commercial dominion,” as self-sufficient as possible.

If

such a scheme were to be successful, the nature of the situa­ tion demanded more efficient regulatory measures.

Prior to

the war the enforcement of many of the trade laws had been haphazard.

But now these old laws, and many new ones, were

to become the bonds for the new commercial empire.

The com­

mercial regulations imposed upon the American colonies in the years 1764-65 were ”to encourage and not to restrict colonial industry.”*** But to the colonies, these "bonds” were regarded as chains, and the insistence with which Gren­ ville pressed the right of England to make these regulations was the only proof they needed. Another element in Grenvillefs policy which lent itself to this feeling in the colonies was Grenville1s proposal to place 10,000 British troops in America on a permanent basis. The British with some logic argued that both the French and the Indians were still a threat to the colonies.

From June,

1763 to September, 1764, there had been a bloody war with a confederation of several Indian tribes, in which the colonies not immediately affected had shown a remarkable disinterest, and most of the fighting had to be done by the British troops.

1 Beer, op. cit.. p. £26. £ Lecky, op. cit.. vol. iv, p. 57.

o

.

212

! In the years immediately following the war the British had not been able to get on very good terms with the French, and they feared the possibility of another war* The American colonies not only resisted this proposal, but also that which was to make them pay for part of the cost of maintaining the troops, the troops they detested and feared* McCarthy explains: If they (the colonies) were technically wrong in their resentment at the enforcement of the Acts of Trade, they were reasonable in their reluctance to accept the proposed garrison, and they were justified by every lav/ of liberty and of patriotism in resisting with all the strength at their command the proposed scheme of taxa­ tion. 1 The revenue for defraying the colonies1 part in main.taining the British troops was to come from a stamp duty on many kinds of legal and public papers.2

The Stamp Act was

first officially proposed by Grenville in the spring of 1764. A note of it was made in the Parliamentary History of that date: ...towards further defraying the said expenses, it may be proper to charge certain Stamp duties in the said

McCarthy, Justin, and McCarthy, Justin Huntly, A History of the Four Georges and of William IV. vol. iii, p. 84. 2 For the full text of the Stamp Act, see Hart and Charming, American History Leaflets. Ho. 21.

213 colonies and plantations. T This resolution was made with the idea in mind of obtaining the opinions of the colonies on the measure before any defi­ nite action should be taken.

Grenville requested the colo­

nial agents to ascertain the attitudes of their respective colonies toward such a tax.

Under-Secretary of State Knox

reveals Grenville1s procedure: Mr. Grenville, indeed, went so far as to desire the agents to acquaint the colonies that if they could not agree among themselves upon raising a revenue by their own Assemblies, yet if they all, or any of them, dis­ liked stamp duties, and would propose any other sort of tax which would carry the appearance of equal efficacy, he would adopt it. But he warmly recommended to them the making grants by their own Assemblies as the most expedient method for themselves.2 But the Massachusetts Assembly was quick to see the im­ plied threat in Grenville’s magnanimity, and they replied to Mauduit, their representative in England: This suspension amounts to no more than this, that if the colonies will not tax themselves as they may be directed, the Parliament will tax them.s The colonies as a whole disliked the proposal for a permanent

^ Parliamentary History, vol. xv, p. 1427. 2 Under-Secretary of State Knox, The Controversy Between Great Britain and Her Colonies, p. 199, in Lecky, pp. cit.. vol. iv, p. 69, n. 3 Almon1s Biographical Anecdotes, vol. ii, pp. 82-92, in Lecky, op,, cit.. loc. cit.

214 army, and they disliked the scheme of taxation even more* There followed, consequently, a series of protests and resolu­ tions from the colonies which opposed the whole idea.

But

Grenville insisted upon the necessity of some sort of tax, and when in February, 1765, the colonial agents made one last ap­ peal to him to withdraw the plan, he replied that he could see no better way to raise the necessary money*

If they could

suggest a better way, he would be glad to hear of it*"*"

Benja­

min Franklin suggested that the British Government make a re­ quisition on all of the colonies, but when Grenville asked, ”Can you agree on the proportions each colony should raise?”, there was no answer. For an act of such outstanding significance to receive so little notice during Its passage through Parliament is fairly indicative of the general ignorance of the colonies, and the apathy toward their vital interests*

Because the account of

the debate on the Stamp Act is so interesting in this regard, I include a portion of it here. This Act passed the commons almost without debate, two or three members spoke against it, but without force or ap­ parent interest, except a vehement harangue from Colonel Barre, who in reply to an observation of Mr. Grenville, in which he described the Americans as children of our own, planted by our care, nourished by our indulgence: said, ”Children planted by your care! M o l your oppression

1 Leeky, oj£. cit.. vol. iv, p. 72.

215 planted them in America; they fled from your tyranny, into a then uncultivated land, where they were exposed to almost all hardships to which human nature is liable, and yet, actuated by principles of true English liberty, they met all these hardships with pleasure, compared to those they suffered in their own country, from the hands of those who should have been their friends. They nour­ ished by your indulgence! They grew by your neglect of them: as soon as you began to take care of them, that care was exercised in sending persons to rule over them, who were, perhaps the deputies of some deputy, sent to spy out their liberty, to misrepresent their actions, and to prey upon them; men, whose behaviour, on many occa­ sions, has caused the blood of those sons of liberty to recoil within them. They protected by your arms! They have nobly taken up arms in your defense, have exerted their valour amidst their constant and laborious indus­ try, for the defense of a country, whose frontiers, while drenched in bipod, its interior parts have yielded all its little savings to your enlargement; and the same spirit which actuated that people at first, will con­ tinue with them still; but prudence forbids me to explain myself further. Later, in January of 1766, Grenville had an opportunity to excoriate the House of Commons for the fact that they could find no objections to the Act at the time of its passage. YJhen I proposed to tax America, I asked the House, if any gentleman would object to the right; I repeatedly asked it, and no man would attempt to deny it. Protection and obedience are reciprocal. Great Britain protects America; America is bound to yield obedience. If not, tell me when the Americans were emancipated? Y&ien they want the protection of this kingdom, they are always ready to ask for it. That protection has always been afforded them in the most full and ample manner. The nation has run itself Into an immense debt to give them their protection; and now they are called upon to eon-

^ Parliamentary History, vol. xvi, pp. 58-40.

216 \

tribute a small share toward the public expense, an ex­ pense arising from themselves, and they renounce your au­ thority, insult your officers, and break out, I might al­ most say, into open rebellion. 1 With the exception of the f,vehement harangue** by Colonel Barre, the Stamp Act encountered little opposition, and it had passed both Houses by the spring of 1765.

It was to be­

come effective on October 1 of the same year. The reaction of the colonists when they heard that the Act had become law has been recounted elsewhere, and it need not be repeated here.

But the forces set in motion by the

passage of the Stamp Act led almost inevitably toward repeal. The colonists were immediately aroused by inflammatory speech­ es and writings.

Even the ministry lent itself to the cause.

One account Is given of a minister who inspired a mob to riot when he ...preached on a text out of the Galatians, I would they were cut off which trouble vou: for. Brethren, ye are called unto liberty, and in his sermon inveighed with the utmost vehemence of expression and gesture against the Stamp Act, which, however ridiculous it may seem to us, so irritated his heated audience, that it was with diffi­ culty they were restrained by the observance of the Sab­ bath, and the next day burst forth into all the violence you have heard of. Against the repeal of the Stamp Act Grenville held out to

^ Parliamentary History, vol. xvi, p. 102. Grenville Papers, vol. iii, p. 108, in a letter from Mr. Whately to Mr. Grenville.

217 the very end*

i

It was -during the debate on repeal that he had

attacked the House of Commons for their want of interest in the previous spring, at the time of its passaged

The longer

Grenville spoke, the more vehement he became in his own defense, and he attempted to vindicate himself from a number of what he called tTealumnies.11 The seditious spirit of the colonies owes its birth to the factions in this House...We are told we trod on tender ground; we were bid to expect disobedience, lhat was this, but telling the .Americans to stand out against this law, to encourage their obstinacy with the expectation of sup­ port from hence? Let us only hold out a little, they would say, our friends will soon be in power. Ungrateful people of America I Bounties have been extended to them. When I had the honour of serving the Crown, while you your­ selves were loaded with an enormous debt, you have given bounties on their lumber, on their iron, their hemp, and many other articles. You have relaxed, in their favour, the Aet of Navigation, that palladium of the British com­ merce; and yet I have been abused in all the public as an enemy to the trade of America. I have been particularly charged with giving orders and instructions/to prevent -the Spanish-tradey-and— thereby “Stopping—the channel, by which alone North America used to be supplied with cash for remittance to this country. I defy any man to produce any such orders or restrictions. I discouraged no trade but what was illicit, what was prohibited by act of Parli­ ament. I desire a West India merchant, well known in the city (Mr. Long), a gentleman of character, may be examined. He will tell you, that I offered to do everything in my power to advance the trade of America. I was above giving an answer to anonymous calumnies; but in this place, It becomes one to wipe off the aspersion.2 To this speech of Grenville, William Pitt replied in part:

See supra. p. 215. 2 Parliamentary History, vol. xvi, pp. 101 ff.

218 The gentleman tells me, America is obstinate; America is almost in open rebellion. I rejoice that America has resisted. Three million of people, so dead to all the feelings of liberty, as voluntarily to submit to be slaves, would have been fit instruments to make -slaves of the rest. 3A1though there was for a time considerable opposition to repeal, the weight of sentiment was for it, and by March 22, 1766 the Stamp Act was no longer law.

Grenville, instead of

sensing and appreciating the force of opinion against his views, became somewhat vindictive and wrote sarcastically to a Mr. Nugent: I have not the least doubt that our brethren in America will express great Joy at the repeal of the Stamp Act, especially if they understand it, as they Justly may, notwithstanding the Declaratory Bill passed at the same time, that they are thereby exempted forever from being taxed by Great Britain for the public support even of themselves, which this kingdom is to pay for them. I think they will be very ungrateful to our American pat­ riots and our American merchants if they do otherwise...^

CONCLUSION The controversy set in motion regarding Grenvillefs policy was to lead "directly to a searching inquiry Into the nature of the imperial c o n s t i t u t i o n . W h a t were the basic issues

^ Parliamentary History, vol. xvi, pp. 103 ff. Grenville Papers, vol. iii, p. 250, Grenville to Mr. Nugent, June 21, 1766. ^ Beer, op. cit.. p. 308.

in the colonies1 claim that they could not he taxed unless they were represented?

Ylhat was the difference between 11in­

ternal” and 11external” taxation?

Although Grenville said,

”1 cannot understand the difference between external and in1 ternal taxes,” nevertheless there must have been in that growing area of misunderstanding some explanation of the dif­ ference*

What was the relationship between ”protection” and

”obedience”?

What forces were to draw the line between the

expressions of loyalty to England on the one hand, and the movement toward independence on the other?

These were only

a few of the many troublesome questions that were to be ans­ wered in one way or another during the following ten years* Although American independence would probably have come eventually in any case, Grenville can be credited in a large part for setting the stage and speeding the movement toward its climax* From the details of Grenville?s American policy one can see a shift from a general ”economic” policy to one of a purely ”financial” nature.

The question of primary import­

ance to Grenville was how to discover means for more revenue* The late war and its consequences had made this necessary* Whereas, formerly the Board of Trade had been in the closest

Parliamentary History* vol* xvi, p. 97.

220

relation to the colonies, now we find that the Treasury De­ partment itself had superseded the Board.*•

This development

was significant in the fact that it meant a more "rigid execu­ tion of the law V in the administrative process,^ an execution buttressed by the British Navy and a demand that the colonial governors rigidly enforce the laws against smuggling* While Grenville concentrated all his energy on the immedi­ ate and more obvious financial problems, the more fundamental factors in the imperial policy went begging even for under­ standing, let alone solution*

Grenville solved nothing by

asserting parliamentary supremacy.

Even had he attempted and

failed to solve the more fundamental problems of imperial poli­ cy, a higher place in history would have been reserved for him. His logic in imposing increased restrictions upon the colonies could have been much worse, but he could not grasp the implica­ tions of his stand* That logic, whether good or bad, was all that might have been expected of Grenville, whose pedantic mind was absorbed in the details of his office, while he blindly passed by the really great issues. He was one of those dread individuals with fa fund of useful knowledge.1 (Historical Mss. Commission, Reports (Various Collections). vol. vi, pp. 94-101.) The stiffness that was in his manner was also in his mind,

1 Beer, op. cit.. p. 2 3 4. 2 Ibid*, p. 235.

221

which always placed above common sense the letter of the law in which he was so deeply versed. To come, as Pitt scorned to do, armed at all points, with law cases and acts of Parliament, with the statute book ’doubled down in dog’s ears,1 exactly suited his genius and his charac­ ter. 3-

GRENVILLE’S FINANCIAL POLICY AT HOME In the days when Grenville and Lord Bute were still on speaking terms, just after Bute’s resignation as Prime Mini­ ster, the letter’s high regard for Grenville’s financial ability was expressed in a conversation with the Attorney General, when he said he believed Grenville to be a ”very worthy and able man, whose turn lay towards the revenue and to that public economy which was so much wanted...*1^

Not

that Lord Bute himself was any judge of one’s financial abi­ lity, but Bute’s opinion was the expression of one held gen­ erally at the time. Grenville is supposed to have said that w’the most im­ portant wrord to him, next to that of liberty, was revenue.” 1^ Whether or not this epigram is true, Grenville was in many

^ Van Tyne, Claude H., The Causes of the War of Inde­ pendence . pp. 139-40. 2 Yorke, Philip C., The Life of Lord Chancellor Hardwicke, vol. iii, p. 385. 3 Quoted in Van Tyne. op. cit.. p. 141.

222

ways the guardian of the public monies.

But in his financial

policy he cannot be credited with any great degree of states­ manship, if by statesmanship is meant the capacity to perceive the larger issues involved.

How Grenville bungled the finan­

cial phases of his American policy has already been recited. In the formation and administration of his home policy he was almost equally lacking in insight. One of the most firmly-rooted and expensive drains on the public treasury was the system of pensions !,by which the Government cared for impecunious relatives and friends!T of i the King or the administration in power. Van Tyne estimates that 400,000 pounds could have been saved by getting rid of this evil.2

Another custom was that by which certain public

officers had available to them the interest on public money. A notable example of this was the office of the Paymaster of the Forces.s

This office was much sought after because it

was one in which an individual could become moderately wealthy in a comparatively short time.

It was the office in which

Henry Fox had so disgraced himself.

The holder of this office

received 2% of the subsidies to foreign troops in addition to

1 Quoted in Van Tyne, op. cit.. p. 138. 2 Note that this is four times the amount Grenville de­ sired to raise by means of the Stamp Tax. 3 See chapter II, p. 65, n.

223 \

the interest obtained from investing the floating balance of the English troops1 salaries** Still another example of the waste and corruption was that which went under the guise of the Civil List.

The Civil List

was the name of that fund of money which Parliament made available to the King for his own purposes.

By it the royal

household was maintained and the royal family supported.

The

King was not accountable to Parliament for the manner in which the money was spent.

Under George III the Civil List came to

be associated with the most flagrant abuses, of which bribery was one of the worst.

George II had left a surplus of 170,000

pounds for his successor, and by 1770 Parliament was called upon to discharge a debt of 500,000 pounds.2

The question

as to where this money had gone nwas answered by Barre, who said, in plain English, that the money which the nation sup­ plied to its sovereign in the loyal hope that he would employ it to gratify his private tastes and maintain his regal state had gone in debauching the House of Commons.^

* t?Grenville himself had profited by drawing the interest on the nation5s money while he was treasurer of the navy.w (Van Tyne, or. cit.. p. 158.) 2 Trevelyan, George Otto, The Early History of Charles James Fox, p. 219. Ibid.. pp. 219-220.

224 Tflhile Grenville was in office he apparently took no pub­ lic notice of the matter.

And it was not until 1770 that

he as wan ex-first lord who knew every secret of the Trea­ sury, and whose failing health excluded him from that of a return to office which is as potent to mitigate the reforming zeal of an opposition, came forward in the character of a fi­ nancial inquisitor.

The particular instance referred to

occurred in 1770, when Grenville moved "for an inquiry into the expenditure of the Civil List.w^ It is quite possible that while Grenville was in office the practice of using money out of the Civil List for brib­ ing Parliament had not reached unusual proportions, although bribery even then was far from uncommon.3

But whether or

not this was true, there was ample room for a man of courage and vision to attempt to change many of the other existing evils, among which are those mentioned here. Such practices were an unfortunate but customary evil of English political life during this period.

For one to

have suggested reforms in these matters would have been to

Trevelyan, ojc>. cit. p. 219. 2 Ibid.. p. 219.

3 See chapter iv, p. Ill ff. for the account of the methods of Henry Fox in getting the Peace of Paris through Parliament.

225 f strike at the very roots of a corrupt political system, a system of corruption and privilege which was already dying under the pressure of the forces of the industrial revolution. It was a system which was to come to an end under the impact of the liberalism and reform of the 19th century. Whereas a man of vision would have seen and attacked these greater problems, Grenville, characteristically, dawdled with the relatively unimportant issues of the day.

He op­

posed the wishes of the Dukes of York and Gloucester, the Kingfs brothers, that their pension be raised from 15,000 to 20,000 pounds a year.’*' He refused to grant the King a sum of 20,000 pounds fTfor the purchase of some grounds ad­ joining Buckingham Palace, which the King was very anxious to secure in order to prevent buildings that would overlook him in his w a l k s . G r e n v i l l e almost intuitively made the most out of the least. In the matter of government expenditures, however, there was a noticeable decrease in the amount of money appropriated for the Supplies.

Government outlays, of course, had reached

their peak during the war, after which they began to taper off.

But during the first year of GrenYillefs administration

*** Grenville Papers, vol. iii, pp. 141 ff. s Lecky, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 265.

226 the sum voted for the Supplies was reduced by about 40$ over the previous year.

For the sake of comparison it might be

well to include the figures for the fifteen-year period from 1754 to 1769. 2 n d Session. 11th Parliament. November 14, 1754 to

April 24, 1755 Supplies.

4,075,779 pounds

5rd Session. 11th Parliament. November 13, 1755 to May 27, 1756 Supplies....... 7,229,117 4s 6-3/4d 4th Session. 11th Parliament. December 2, 1756 to July 4 1757 Supplies................. 8,355,320 9s Od 6th Session. 11th Parliament. November 23, 1758 to June 2, 1759 Supplies 12,761,310 19 s 5d 7th Session. 11th Parliament. November 13, 1759 to May 22, 1760 Supplies.. 15,503,563 15s 91/3d 8th Session. 11th Parliament. October 25, 1760 to March 19, 1761 Supplies 19,616,119 19s 93/4d

1st Session. 12th Parliament. November 3, 1761 to June 2, 1762 Supplies....... 18,299,153 18s ll-l/2d 2nd Session. 12th Parliament. November 25, 1762 to April 19, 1763 Supplies 13,522,040 14s 4-l/2d 3rd Session. 12th Parliament. November 15, 1763 to April 19, 1764 Supplies ....... 7,712,562 18s 7-2/5d

227 4 th Session, 12th Parliament, January 10, 1765 to May 2 5 , 1765 _ Supplies.................. 7,763,090 13s Od 1 5th Session, 12th Parliament. December 17, 1765 to June 6, 1766 Supplies............... 8,273,280 11sl-5/8d1 6th Session. 12th Parliament. November 11, 1766 to July 2, 1767 Supplies............. 8,527,728 Os6-l/8d

2nd Session. 13th Parliament. November 8, 1768 to May 9, 1769 Supplies. ........... 6,999,003 4s 10-l/2d 2 It can be noted that the expenditures for Supplies (the Supplies include the general running expenses of the govern­ ment, the armed forces, etc.) during the Grenville admini­ stration were lower than the previous eight years, although the expenditures for the second session of the 13th Parlia­ ment were to be less by almost a million pounds. It is difficult to say just how responsible Grenville was for bringing about these reductions.

It was natural that ex­

penses should have fallen sharply after the war, and the figures given for his administration may only indicate the general trend.

It is true that he opposed excessive outlays

1 Grenville1s administration. 2 These figures are taken from vols. xv and xvi of Parliamentary History, passim.

228 of money to rebuild the British Navy after the war, even though there was good reason to believe that the French were hurriedly reconstructing theirs.^

He seems to have minimized

the danger of the French fleet as seen by his First Lord of the Admiralty, Lord Egmont.

In this he seems to have guessed

correctly. Aside from the Stamp Act, nothing remarkable of a finan­ cial nature took place during the two years Grenville was in office.

Lecky goes so far as to state that wperhaps the only

valuable measure that can be ascribed to this ministry is the 2

annexation to the English Crown of the Isle of Man.”

For

some time the island had been the center of the smuggling trade to England and Ireland, and until the Grenville mini­ stry purchased it for 70,000 pounds it had been impossible to suppress such illicit trade.

To Grenville goes at least this

much credit.

See letter from Lord Egmont to Grenvil-le in Grenville Papers, vol. ii, p. 171 ff. and 290 ff; also one from Gren­ ville to Egmont, in ibid.. p. 293. ^ Lecky,

ojd .

cit.. vol. iii, p p. 258-59.

CHAPTER IX THE REGENCY BILL

In April of 1765 the King was taken seriously ill.

This

illness later was recognized to be the first symptom of the ?lmental derangementH from which the King suffered during the later years of his reign.

While he was recovering, the King

seems to have given some thought to the provision of a re­ gency because of the minority of his children. Ths Kingfs first move in this regard was^made on the 3rd of April, a date which one might mark as the beginning of the end

of the Grenville Ministry.

For the Regency Bill, es­

pecially the way in which it was handled, was the direct cause for Grenville»s dismissal. On this date Grenville heard from Lord Sandwich that the King was to. hold a levee.

After the levee Grenville saw the

King alone at which time the King mentioned his proposal for a regency bill.

It was at this time that Grenville learned

also that other

members of the Ministry had been given for­

mal notice of the Kingfs plans, while Grenville had heard about it only indirectly through Lord Sandwich. wrote in his diary:

Grenville

230 He (the King) said he wished his servants to have a meet­ ing upon it, such of them as by their offices would be of the JCouncil of Regency,^ and had therefore settled a meet­ ing for the next day, with the Lord Chancellor and the Duke of Bedford, to whom His Majesty said he had that day named it, and that he, the King, had appointed it for the next day at the Chancellor’s, that it might not keep Mr* Grenville in town. N.B. The King wrote to Lord Chancellor with his own hand, to order him to come to him and sent to the Duke of Bedford, but Mr. Grenville and Lord Hali­ fax received no notice of His Majesty’s being in town but from Lord Sandwich.s If Grenvillefs report is true, it is difficult to discover the reason for the King’s conduct in excluding- Grenville from the meeting.

It is just one of the many imponderables which

obscured the whole affair.

In any case, it seems to have cre­

ated an unhealthy atmosphere, and determined Grenville’s apathetic attitude toward the proceedings. In Grenville’s talk to the King (above), the King ex­ plained that he wished to have the power to name the Regent f himself, ^without specifying the particular person in the Act of Parliament, which he thought would be a means to prevent 3 any faction or uneasiness in his family upon the subject.”

1 The ex-officio member of the Regency Council were: Archbishop of Canterbury, The Lord Chancellor, Lord President, Lord Privy Seal, First Lord of the Treasury, the two Secretar­ ies of State, First Lord of the Admiralty, and Lord Chief Jus­ tice of the King’s Bench. (Grenville Papers. ”Diaryy” April 5, 1765, n.) 2 Grenville Papers. ”Diary,” April 3, 1765. 3 Ihid.. loc. cit.

Grenville approved of the King’s "goodness in thinking of a Regency, but avoided saying anything with regard to the change by the proposal of reserving the nomination to the King, which then appeared to him liable to great objections**. The King also was opjjosed "to having the Princes of the blood in the Council of Regency, and said he thought it would create jealousy and uneasiness. On Friday the 5th of April,'the Council met to consider the King’s proposal.

For the sake of clarity and for pur­

poses of reference I include the full proceeding as record­ ed in the Grenville Papers. April 5, 1765, Friday; Great George Street. MINUTE OF THE MEETING OF HIS MAJESTY ’ S SERVANTS. -PRESENT: Lord Northington (Chancellor) Duke of Bedford (President of the Council) Earl of Halifax (Secretary of State) Earl of-Sandwich (Secretary of State) Earl of Egmont (First Lord of the Admiralty) Lord Mansfield (Attorney General) Mr. Grenville (First Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer) The Lords have taken into consideration, pursuant to the King’s order, His Majesty’s intention of proposing to Parliament to make a provision for the administration of government in case of a minority (which God prevent), and thoroughly sensible of His Majesty’s paternal care and attention to the welfare of his people, and most

1 Ibid.. loc. cit. 2 Ibid.. loc. cit. The King later changed his mind on this matter, and decided to include the Princes in the Coun­ cil of Regency. See ibid., "Diary," April 19, 1765.

humble express t£iejj: entire approbation of His Majesty fs general idea, thaV a Regency should be appointed* and that it should, be communicated to Parliament in a speech from the Throne* in which should be mentioned with pre­ cision what power His Majesty wishes to have, and under restrictions and regulations, with a proper reference to the last Regency Act, That they under stand that His Majesty »s idea of re­ serving to himself the power of appointing a Regent is meant to be restrained to the Queen, or any other person of the Royal family, usually residing in Great Britain.1 The Kingfs approval of what took place at this meeting is indicated in Grenvillefs diary when he wrote: Lord Sandwich reported the deliberations of the Council to the King, and came to acquaint Mr. Grenville that His Majesty was perfectly pleased with what had passed there, and entirely approved the Minute.g The next day Grenville left the city for his home at Wotton where he stayed until the 17th.

On the 18th Grenville

saw the King and showed him the Speech to be given from the Throne, and the King approved it.

At this meeting between

the King and Grenville the former said he had changed his mind about excluding the Princes of the Royal blood (of which there were five), from the Council of Regency, and that he wished also to reserve to himself the power to name four more "according to the former Act.

1 "On the back of this Minute is the following note in Mr. Grenville*s hand: *Carried to the King the same day by Lord Sandwich, and approved of entirely by His- Majesty.f11— Grenville Papers. vol. ii, "Diary," April 5, 1765. 2 Ibid.. loc. cit. I b i d " D i a r y ,n April 18, 1765.

234 Grenville protested that the King’s power to name nine of the Connell of Regency might run into objections, ”but the< King said nothing.”

The reason for Grenville’s abjection

was, that if the King had the power to appoint nine of the Council,

he would have the capacity to annul the power of

the government, since there were only eighteen Councillors all together.**"

But by the next day the King had changed his

mind again because the Lord Chancellor had raised objections, and said he ’’desired it might be settled for his only having five additional Councillors.”2 At his meeting with the King on the 19th,. Grenville ex­ pressed his uneasiness at the whole procedure thus far, and suggested that lt~would be ”better and-safer” for the King to name the

Regent in the Speech from the Throne.

But ’’His Maj-

esty did not alter his opinion on that particular.” The importance of this recommendation of Grenville’s will appear from the fact that if the King had named the Regent as Grenville suggested, the whole controversy over.the eligibil­ ity of the Queen and the-King’s mother, the Princess Dowager,

1 Ibid.. letter of Mansfield to Grenville, April 20, 1765, and note by editor. 2 Ibid., ”Biary,” April IS, 1765. The King later agreed to appoint no one but the five Princes. See ibid., ’’Diary,” April 28, 1765. S Ibid., ”Diary,” April 19, 1765.

235 might have been avoided, a controversy which led to the bit­ ter feelings of the King toward Grenville, and finally to the latter *s dismissal

from office.1

On the 24th of

April, Grenville wrote to the King to tell

him that the House

of Commons had "agreed to the Address pro­

posed by the House

of Lords (in reply to theKing *s Speech)

to be presented to your Majesty.*.»

But Grenville stated fur­

ther that, ffUpon the whole it appeared very plainly that the plan of the Oppositoh was to let the Address go, but to resist the provisions of the Bill to the utmost."

2

It may' well have been because of this anticipated oppo­ sition that the King thought a change in the procedure of passing the Regency Bill v/as necessary.

It should be noted

at this point that the projected change was one of the most important reasons why Grenville felt that the King was with­ holding his confidence and support from his Administration. Ths significant thing about this particular affair was not the change the King desired, but the manner in which he set it in motion.

And this is the subject of the following paragraphs.

It seems that on the 25th of April the King told Lord Hal­ ifax that he expected a "great deal of opposition to the Reg­ ency Bill.11 He suggested to Halifax that it would be "very

1 See infra. 2 Grenville Papers, vol. iii, p. 22.

236 disagreeable11 if the Opposition should propose that the Prin-n ces, the King*s brother, and the Duke of Cumberland be named as members of the Regency Council, and then to have the KingTs own Ministers oppose this measure.

The King explained further

that this idea struck him while he was talking to his two bro­ thers, the Dukes of York and Gloucester, the day before.

And

here lies the source of irritation which Grenville began to feel against the King.

It so happens that the interview the

King had with his brothers the day before Just preceded one between bhe King and Grenville.

And yet the King did not

suggest to Grenville then that he saw the possibility of the move of the Opposition mentioned above.^ The King took no notice to Mr. Grenville that he had seen both his“brothers about two hours before, nor of what had passed, though that was the conversation which His Majesty referred to when he spoke to the Duke of Cumberland today, on the subject of adding the names of his brothers and of the Duke of Cumberland in the R e g e n c y Bill.2 Gn the same day the King talked with his brother, he or­ dered Lord Halifax to call a meeting of those men who had for­ merly held a meeting on the Bill, In order to determine in what manner this change could be made.

Grenville was appar-

1 It is quite possible that the King may not have thought of this possibility while he was talking with his brothers, but later, even after his talk with Grenville, after he had had time to consider more fully the conversation he had held with the Dukes. 2 Grenville Papers. ftDiary,!! April 25, 1765. Cumberland was the King 1s uncle. —

The Duke of

237 'ently busy at the Treasury andj did not get to St. James *s Palace until after two o*clock p.m., when he found that the King had already left for Richmond.

The first Grenville

heard of the proposal was that afternoon from Lord Halifax, 1

”to his great surprise.”

In the mean time Lord Halifax had seen all of the Cabinet Ministers, all of whom seemed to think that this was no sub­ ject for a Cabinet meeting.

The Lord Chancellor even refused

to attend a meeting upon the subject, although he said he "would not oppose what the King should think fit to do with respect to his Royal family...”2

The rest of the Ministers,

however* ©greed to meet that night. Just before the last of the Ministers arrived, a messenger came with a note from the King in which, among other things, the King made a request_indicated thus: I desire Lord Halifax will send me tomorrow a copy of the Minute, that I intend to keep, and that he will acornpany (it) with a line, if anything particular has been said by any person.5 This note was shown to all of the members there, and they all agreed "that no opinion could be given at any meeting concern-

^ Ibid.. loc. cit. 2 Ibid.. loc. cit. 3 Grenville Papers."Diary,”Thursday, April 2 5 , 1765. It is not indicated whether theitalics arethe KingfsGrenville*s, or the editor*s.

238 ing the fitness of appointing ’the Princes of the Royal fam­ ily to be of the Council, but seemed tothink that the pro­ per est manner of doing it, if it was to

be done, would be by

message from the King, specifying it as was done in the for­ mer instance in the late Kingfs r e i g n . I t was further in­ sisted upon that Lord Halifax should shov? nothing to the King in writing, but that he should give only the verbal opinion of the Council.

It was also agreed that Lord Sandwich should ac­

company Lord Halifax. The next day, Lords Halifax and Sandwich sent a note to the King at Richmond requesting an audience for the purpose of explaining the results of the meeting the.-night'-before.

The

- King was somewhat irked by this procedure, for he addressed himself thus to the Lords: Lord i^alifax, I chose to have my time when I am at Rich­ mond to myself, and not to have it broken in upon. ..I am a little surprised that Lord Halifax did not send me a line with a sketch of what had passed, though it might want more explanation, and I do insist on the doing it to satisfy my curiosity before I hear the rest tb-morrow.2 The Lords in a return note explained to the King that the Min­ isters thought that this was no subject for a Council meeting, and that the best means of carrying his orders into execution would be

1 Ibid.« loc. cit. 2 Ibid., nDiary,,! April 26, 1765.

. 239 a message to the House, after the reading of the Bill on Monday* That Lord Halifax and Lord Sandwich'imagined a verbal account would have been more satisfactory to His Majesty, which was the reason for their asking leave to wait upon him at Richmond.. .”1 In the mean time the King had received the Lord Chancel­ l o r ^ reply to his own letter requesting the second meeting mentioned above, in which the Chancellor told the King ”that if besides the Princes of the Royal blood His Majesty meant to name five Councillors to the Regency, it would be nine out of eighteen, which would entirely alter the whole idea upon which it was formed, and totally disannul the power meant to be lodged in the great Offices of State*”2

The Chancellor in

the letter he had received from the King had been ordered to come to the King on the following Sunday, April 28th*

The

Chancellor showed this letter to Grenville, saying that ”he was highly discontented, and said he looked upon this affair as the overthrow of the present Ministry.”5 The Chancellor saw the King on

Sunday, and thelatter

that he should not appoint five additional Councillors

to the

Regency, but only the five Princes, with the right to fill any vacancies which might occur in the Council*

1 Grenville Papers* ”Diary,Tf April 26, 1765* 2 Ibid*, loc* cit* s Ibid** loc* cit*

agreed

240 When Grenville sa?? the King this day, the King told him of the change, and asked him "if he didr not think this would be agreeable to everybody..."

At this point Grenville gave

vent to his feelings and said: with firm and steady countenance, that he really had been honored with so little of His Majesty’s confidence and communication in this important business, that he vras at a loss to form any opinion upon it, or to know what it was that had drawn upon him this degree of His Majesty’s dis­ pleasure. 1 The King "seemed surprised, and asked Mr. Grenville what was the matter, and said he had ordered Lord Halifax to tell him of the alteration, as he himself had not seen him on Fri­ day ."2

This Grenville admitted, but he then went on and lec­

tured the King for several minutes on his duplicity.2

Whether

the King was guilty as charged or not, Grenville never rid himself of the feeling that the King was working around him rather than through him as Prime Minister.

And this "lecture"

was not to be the last the King was to receive from Grenville and his Ministers. During the debate in the House of Lords on the Regency Bill which took place on the 2nd of May, the question arose as

1 Because these conversation between the King and Grenville give a good picture of the relationship of— the two men, I have included them in their entirety in Appendix IV. p. viii. ^ Grenville Papers. "Diary," April 28, 1765. 5 See Appendix IV, p. viii

241 to the meaning of the wrods ”R©yal Family.”

Tias the Queen a

member of the Koyal Family, having been born outside of Eng­ land? Some believed that words 11ext ended only to those who were in line of succession to the Crown.”1 held by the Duke of Bedford.

This view was

Others believed that the mar­

riage of the Queen had made her a naturalized citizen with all the rights of a natural-born citizen. espoused by the Lord Chancellor.

This was the view

In order to establish the

legal meaning of the words a meeting was held by the Council, and the following question

was drawn up to be submitted to

the Judiciary for their interpretation: What is the interpretation of the words Royal Family ac­ cording to the legal sense thereof in any Act or Acts of Parliament, where these words have been used?2 Unfortunately, the judicial opinion, if any was ever giv­ en, had little effect on the course of events, for the names of the Queen and the Princess Dowager of Wales came to be pol­ itical footballs for the next two or three weeks between mem­ bers of the Opposition and the Government. The King on the previous day, Mai 1, had suggested to Lord Halifax that if this difficulty of interpretation should arise, it might be well to ”insert other words which would

1 Grenville Papers. "Diary,” May 2, 1765. 2 Ibid., loc. cit.

242 rnot include Her Royal Highness, and~th&t then the descrip­ tion might be by inserting the following words: 1or any per­ son of the Royal Family descended from the late King, His Majesty *s Royal Grandfather . *1,1

And Lord Halifax also told

Grenville that 11in talking upon the Bill in the morning (of the 2nd of May) with the King, Hi s. Majesty had empo?.rered him to confine it to the words, *born in England,1 if he saw the least oceassion for it*

This surprised Mr* Grenville great-

ly."2 In view of the suggestion made by the King to Lord Hal­ ifax, the Ministers in their meeting on the second of May, decided that if they understood the King correctly the fol­ lowing words might be inserted in the Bill: ...or any per son of the Royal Family descended from the late King, His Majestyfs Royal Grandfather. 3

In any case, the Ministers agreed that nit was indispensibly necessary to ascertain the doubt which had been raised in the House of Lords.11 The next day (May 3rd) Lords Halifax, and Sandwich went to the King, and on mentioning this difficulty to the King, His MaJ-

^ Ibid. loc. cit. 2 Itid.. loc. cit. 3 ihid.. loc. cit.

243 esty proposed to them to explain it by words which would exclude the Princess Dowager (the King*s mother); in con­ sequence the words above-mentioned were immediately agreed to and settled by the King, of which Lord Halifax informed Mr, Grenville by a word as he passed by his Lordship to go into the Closett and when Mr. Grenville waited upon the King, His Majesty told him he hoped he had settled it with Lord Halifax in such a manner as would obviate the diffi­ culties, and repeated to him the words above mentioned, and informed him at the same time that he had authorized Lord Halifax the day before to put an end to, the doubt; that Lord Halifax told him it would make the whole easier, and particularly in the House of Commons, where some gen­ tlemen might have difficulties about the meaning of the general words.I The reason for which I have gone so fully into the minutia of these transaction is that it necessary to the understanding of the factors on both sides of this controversy which brought the Kingfs wrath upon the heads of the Ministers*

For the

King believed that his mother had been artfully excluded from being named Regent.

Another reason for this detail is that

the affair led eventually to the dismissal of the Grenville Ministry * The reason why the King should have consented to ”this insult" to his mother is a matter for conjecture.

To Lecky,

it appears that the affair was transacted in great haste, that the King hardly understood or realised what he was doing, and that he was persuaded by Lord Halifax that, if the princess were not directly excluded in the Bill, the House of Commons would take the still stronger and more insulting step of excluding her by name.2

^ Ibid.. loc. cit. 2 Lecky, op. cit., vol. ili, p. 866.

244 From the sources availably it seems that Grenville was not personally responsible for the questionalbe motives behind the Ministry’s handling of the affair, although he did admit that he was "very indifferent" because of the King’s circumvention of his (Grenville’s) authority.

But there were other person­

alities involved who may be charged with greater responsibil­ ity ity for the final outcome. i

Whether or not the House of Commons would have openly in­ sulted the Princess Dowager as Lord Halifax so ominously pre­ dicted is a matter of question.

But this is unimportant inas­

much as Halifax was able to entice from the King his assent to the proposal.

The conduct of both Lord Halifax and the

Duke of Bedford must be considered in the light of the dis­ affection that lay between them on the one hand, and the Queen mother and Lord Bute on the other.

No love was lost between

the Ministers and Lord Bute who was believed by the former to be perpetually meddling in the affairs of state In contra­ diction to the King^s ^repeated assurances that he was not.

It

should be remembered, also, that the relations between the Princess and Lord Bute for a long time had been far more than casual.'*'

And it is quite possible that Halifax and Bedford

took this means to strike at the influence of Lord Bute. But the part played by the Ministers themselves is not the

1 See supra. p. 77.

245 only factor to be considered. v It is further enlightening to understand Lord ButeIs position in the affair.

On the 2nd

of May, the first day Lord Halifax appeared in the House of Lords with the King’s permission to make the above alter­ ations, Lord Bute approached Lord Halifax as if by chance, and said some indifferent thing to him (which he had not done before for a long time), and said to him, W Lord, what have you to move? to which Lord Halifax said, ’The words now and usually residing in Great Britain.* Lord Bute said, ’Why do you not put an end to the doubt by adding the words, ’born in England, * which would explain the whole, and exclude the Princess.’ This Lord Halifax said he was authorized to do, if it should be found expedient. ’Why then do you not do it at once? I think it would be the better way, but you know your own business best.’I Not only did Lord Bute say* he thought this would be the "bet­ ter way," but "he was sure Her Royal Highness would think so too. If the position of the King is difficult to understand, the motive for Lord Bute’s conduct is much more so if it is regarded as a sincere expression of his feelings in the mat­ ter.

A possible explanation of Bute’s conduct may be ob­

tained if one considers the political advantages to Bute himself.

In the first place, he had held no official position

in the government for over two years, although he had main-

^ Grenville Papers, vol. ii, "Diary," May 2, 1765. 2 Ibid.« loc cit.

246 tained the closest attachmentjto the King.1

In the second

place, he seems never to have given up the hope of regain­ ing office, ,although there were few men less popular with the people.

It is possible that he saw in this affair the oppor­

tunity of at least overthrowing the Grenville Government by urging upon Lord Halifax a measure which he (Bute) himself p later repudiated. For, a few days after Bute’s remarks to Halifax, "Lord Bute’s friends give out everywhere that Lord Halifax had misunderstood His Majesty."3

Likewise, when an

amendment was moved by a Mr. Morton to include the name of the Princess Dowager, Lord Bute "did not seem pleased.

1 Mr. Jenkinson, Lord Bute’s former private secretary, told Grenville in the following November that "he knew that the King wrote him a journal every day of what passed, and as minute a one as if, said he, ’your boy at school was directed by you to write his journal to you.’11 It should be pointed out, however, that this entry was made under the date, July 19, 1765 (about six weeks later). More than once Grenville ante­ dated his entires, possibly because he did not get around to do it at the time. 2 However, the integrity of Lord Halifax was not above question, and he may have overdrawn the picture of Bute’s en­ thusiasm. Halifax, and most of the other Ministers, were al­ ways quick to blame Bute for their troubles in the Closet. 3 Grenville Papers, vol. ii, "Diary," May 9, 1765. 4 Ibid., "Diary," May 12. This was- told to Grenville by Mr. Gilbert Elliot, a mutual friend of Bute’s and Grenville’s, who had dined with Bute only the day before. The diaiy goes on to say: "Mr. Elliot said to Mr. Grenville that things were in a sad situation; he was sorry to see it, but whilst'the King distinguished between his favorite (Bute) and his ministers, they must be so."

247 Ttfhether or not Bute’s a ctdon was deliberately intended to oust Grenville, that was, nevertheless, the consequence of it. The point to be made is that, although he was not the only ir­ ritating factor in the situation, his motives were not above suspicion. On the 5th of May when Grenville went to the King, the whole affair burst wide open.

Grenville wrote of it in his

diary: As soon as Mr. Grenville came in, the King coloured, and, with great emotion, said that he had something to speak to him upon, which gave him the greatest uneasiness, which was the mark of disregard shown to the Princess of Wales, his mother, by the words which excluded—her alone from the Regency...the offence it marked to his mother was what he could not bear, and therefore was desirous to have some means of altering it found out.1 The King was also disturbed by the possibility that the Op­ position might move the inclusion

of theTrincess’s name in

the Bill, with the anomalous result that

the King’s Ministers

would be opposing a measure which to the King was of a very personal nature.

Grenville said that he was not surprised

that the King was offended at this lack of respect for his mother, but as for Grenville’s making a change in the Bill, .. .he endeavoured to show His Majesty how impossible it was for him to propose the alteration; that His Majesty’s Secretary of State having, with his authority, proposed these words, which excluded Her Royal Highness, how could his Chancellor of the Exchequer (Grenville) by the same

1 Grenville Papers. ’’Diary,” May 5, 1765

248 a uthority propose the adding her name? that people must and would suppose that either the one of the other had mistaken His Majesty.1 Grenville went on to say, that even without any directions from His Majesty, he should never have opposed any mark of respect offered to Her‘ "Royal Highness...that he could not but suppose that every degree of duty and regard from that House (Commons) to any part of His Majesty I s Royal Family could not be displeasing to His Majesty, and that this might be done in case the question was proposed.2 After Grenville left the King, Lord Mansfield, the Attor­ ney General, went in and Purged very strongly to His Majesty the unhappy appearance of wavering and fluetuation which this affair must inevitanly give to his councils...”5

And when he

left the King the latter ”was in the utmost degree of agita­ tion and emotion, even unto tears.”4

Grenville and Mansfield

then talked the matter over more fully and agreed that ”any mark of respect to her, (the Princess) could not but be pleas­ ing to His Majesty...and so in that manner to give in to the proposition which the Opposition would probably make for inEv

sorting her name.”''

I

1 Grenville Papers. "Diary,” May 5, 1765. ibid., loc. cit. 3 Ibid., loc cit. 4

loc. cit.

5 Ibid.. loc. cit.

249 Shortly thereafter, the Bill was passed by the House of Lords in the form desired by the Administration.

The Bill de­

clared ’’the royal family to be only the descendants of the late King; which excluded the princess dowager, who was of another family.”^

Although the Regency Bill apparently was not pop­

ular with the Ministers, nevertheless, they did obtain some satisfaction from the Lords’ verdict in that they regarded it as a check on Lord Bute.

Almon explained the matter thus:

The administration, to whom the Bill was never supposed to be agreeable, are spoken of as considering this a kind of victory over Lord Bute, whose particular views were thought to be destroyed by-this exclusion, which was accomplished without any manifest opposition to the Bill'.** John Almon’s History of the Late Minority was first printed in 1765.

It is doubtful if Grenville’s ’’Diary” was accessible to

him at that time, although he no doubt was familiar with much of the intrigue recorded in the ’’Diary.”

In this regard, it was

noted above3 that Lord Bute had openly urged Lord Halifax to move the exclusion of the Princess Dowager from the right to become Regent, while at the same time it was evident that his intentions and desires ran counter to this suggestion.

As ex­

plained above, the most logical reason for Bute’s advice to

1 Almon, John, History of the Minority., p. 314, in Par­ liamentary History. vol. xvi, p. 55. 2 Ibid.. loc. cit. 3 See supra. p. 244.

250 Halifax was that he hoped such a move would precipitate a break between the King and the Administration, leading to a new government in which he (Bute) might have a part. Lord Bute~was successful in both his designs.

In the

first place, he was able to get the Princess’s name inserted in the Bill in the House of Commons, an amendment which was later accepted by the House of Lords.

Almon explains:

But when it (the Regency Bill} came into the Commons, a motion was made and supported by Lord Bute’s friends, to insert her royal highness’s name ; to which the House agreed. And with this amendment it went back to the Lords, where it met with no second opposition.1 In fact, there was little opposition to the amendment even in the Commons, the tally being 167 for the amendment, and 37 against it. Bute had very skillfully manouvered the situation to a position where it would have been an open insult to the King for anyone to refuse to agree to the change. In the second place, Bute achieved his objective of over­ throwing the Grenville government, for if there was one. cause for Grenville’s downfall, it was the Regency Bill and the part Grenville and his ministers played in relation to it. On the 15th of May the Bill was approved by the King. Outwardly, it was the end of a very unpleasant incident.

^ Almon, op. cit., in Parliamentarv History, vol. xvi, p. 56.

251 But more significantly, it meant the end of the Grenville ad­ ministration, for the King immediately set in motion a plan to rid himself of those men who had caused hira so much uneasiness in both his public and private affairs.

CHAPTER X THE FALL OF THE GRENVILLE ADMINISTRATION: CHARACTER OF HIS MINISTERS

One of the most prominent eharacteristics of English political life in the 18th century was the great degree in which personal ambition and party faction obtained.

Like­

wise was the absence of what would be called today great social issues.

What unity was attained by a group of po­

litical colleagues was usually directed toward personal or party objectives, and not toward the discovery or solution of problems that affected the large majority of the people* Much more time, energy

and wealth seems to have been spent

in learning the art of

getting and keeping an office than

in learning the art of

statesmanship.

tion in the 18th century was notorious.

Parliamentary corrup The electoral pro­

cess was still far from even those first timid advances made in the reform bill of 1832. was by the aristocracy, ah its own advantage.

Consequently, government

aristocracy which existed for

Its political divisions and alignments

were aimed toward obtaining power or the fruits of power. In such a political atmosphere it is not difficult to under

252 stand why there should have been so few social advances. Men were still fighting for freedom of the press, the sine qua non of political advancement.

John Wilkes, irre­

spective of his personal irregularities, was one of the per­ secuted apostles of this freedom who led a losing fight against the spy and the censor.

The significant thing about

the Wilkes affair was that if even a member of Parliament could be deprived of his immunity, what could be said for the impotent masses?

For months after the Wilkes affair hardly

anyone, high or low, dared to make a statement critical of the government. When to speak or write ohefs mind on politics is to obtain the reputation, and render oneself liable to the punishment, of a criminal, social discredit, with all its attendant moral dangers, soon attaches itself to the more humble opponents of a ministry. To be outside the law as a publisher or a pamphleteer is only less trying to conscience and conduct than to be outside the law as a smuggler or a poacher... But just as important as these factors in determining the causes for the apathy toward social problems was the absence of the great social pressures which create social problems great enough to challenge and demand statesmanship.

What was

yet needed was the ideas, and the social and economic reper­ cussions of the French revolution and the subsequent wars.

1 Trevelyan, op. cit.. p. 440.

£53 $ Until these social forces underneath became powerful enough the political forces above could not be stirred, Another and concomitant characteristic of this period was the fact that politicians did not customarily rise or fall on great social issues.

This can be said of two of the greatest

political personalities of the 18th century, Sir Robert Walpole and William Pitt, Bute,

It can also be said of Pelham, Newcastle and

And it was true of Grenville, since his fall was due,

not to the Stamp Act, but rather to his conduct in handling the Regency Bill, In many ways the factionalism and ambition displayed in the Grenville ministry was illustrative of 18th century politics. From the very beginning it was apparent that the ministers in Grenvillefs government had placed their own aims uppermost. Lord Shelburne, while President of the Board of Trade, acted as liaison between Lord Bute and Pitt for the formation of a new government.

This occurred only a few months after Gren1 ville came to power. And later, in September of that year, 1763, Shelburne resigned because his work subjected him "to too close an attendance."2 In October, 1763, Just after the death of Lord Egremont

^ See supra. chapter VII. 2 See supra, chapter VII, p. 175

and the appointment of Lord Sandwich to take his place, the latter came to Grenville and expressed the hope that he would hold the same place in the administration that the former had held, and said he 11supposed that the disposition of offices was to "be partitioned between them three, Lord Halifax (the other Secretary of State), himself, and Mr-. G.ffl

But Grenville

quickly quashed the pretentions of Sandwich when he said that, ...he would never consent that any of the House of Commons1 offices should go through any channel but his own; that he would be glad to receive the recommendations of his friends, and to forward them when it was in his power, but that people must speak to him himself; that he did not do this from the thirst of power or patronage, but from knowing it to be essentially necessary whilst he held that station in Government.^ But Lord Sandwich was not content to take the matter to Gren­ ville, for he had previously asked Lord Halifax to place his pretentions directly before the King, which he did, and the King expressed "his surprise to Lord Halifax at his being so eager to forward Lord Sandwich*s pretentions.*1^

The thing

that bothered Grenville was that Halifax had approached the King on this matter without first saying anything to him. While reports were rife that Lord Bute was disappointed

^ Grenville Papers, vol. ii, p. 211, "Diary,** October 11, 1763.

255 that the negotiations with Pitt had failed, and that the af­ fair might still be salvaged if Pitt would let down the bars a little, Bute was bidding "Mr. Jenkinson to tell Mr. Gren­ ville to be aware of his colleagues in Government, wishing that they might not one day betray him."1

And Lord Bute in­

sisted that "he most earnestly and sincerely wished success to Mr. Grenville1s Administration, thinking it the only safety for the King’s affairs; that he told every friend he had in the world that such was his opinion and his wish, in order that every friend of his might contribute every degree of strength and support they could give it."^

The sincerity

of Bute’s felicitations may be Judged from his formerly ex­ pressed opinion of Grenville’s capacities, and subsequent events.

Needless to say, he did not help matters any.

During the summer of 1763, while the King and Lord Bute were trying to find the basis of another government, the Duke of Bedford, who later Joined the Grenville ministry, was also involved in these negotiations, and at that time expressed his belief that Grenville’s government would not last.^

Bedford, although an unpopular figure because of

the part he played in the Peace, was the leader of a power-

1 Grenville Papers, vol. ii, p. 218, "Diary," October 29, 1763. 2 Ibid.. loc. cit. 3 See supra. pp. 163 ff.

256 ful parliamentary following, and naturally was in a position to bargain for the best political situation*

But once he ac­

cepted the office of President of the Council, he was usually a staunch supporter of the Grenville government. ffliile the two Secretaries of State, Lord Sandwich and Lord Halifax, strained themselves to gain every personal advantage while in office, neither can be credited with any outstanding ability.

As a member of the Medmenham brotherhood, even Sand1 wich* s morality was in question. As to Halifax* ability, the King once told Grenville, !fbetween you and I, Mr. Grenville. he (Halifax) knows no more of money affairs than Mr. Pitt does.1,2 Although Lords Sandwich and Halifax gave lip service to Grenville and his government, there are many indications that they both repeatedly tried to circumvent his authority by go­ ing over his head directly to the King.

On one such occasion

the two Secretaries went to the King to suggest that Sir Jo­ seph Yorke be replaced by Mr. Stanley at the Hague.

The first

Grenville heard of it was when the King told him on the 10th

*** See supra, pp. 149-50. ^ Grenville Papers, vol. ii, p. 219, "Diary,*1 November 2, 1763. "His sister, Mrs. Anne Pitt, is reported to have often said that he knew nothing accurately except Spenser*s 1Faerie Queene.*** (Ed. n., ibid., p. 219.)

25 7 of November, 1763, that "he supposed him to have been ap­ prised by Lord Halifax and Lord Sandwich, who had proposed it to His M a j e s t y . " M r . Grenville assured His Majesty it was the first word he had ever heard of it, at which the King ex­ pressed great blame and surprise against them both."^ This incident placed Grenville in an embarrassing posi­ tion, because apparently the Secretaries had already informed Stanley of the proposal.

Mr. Stanley was not an ardent sup­

porter of Grenvilleis, and Grenville ingenuously explained to Stanley the necessity of reserving his patronage for those who would support his government, "that in the situation he stood in the House of Commons, he could never consent that any of the offices held by members of that House should go through any channel but his o w n . " ^ impressed.

Mr. Stanley was not much

Two days later Grenville tried to ease the situa­

tion by explaining further, ffthat though he had great regard for Lord Halifax and Lord Sandwich, he could not in this in­ stance, look upon them as his colleagues, because, whilst he was understood to manage the King* s business in the House of

^ Grenville Papers. vol. ii, p. 219, "Diary.” s Ibid., loc. cit.

3 Ibid.. vol. ii, p. 281, "Diary," November 10, 1763.

258 Commons, he could acknowledge no colleague there

This

seemed to assuage Stanleys feelings, for he "declared fully that he meant to support the King*s Government, and to show his personal regard to Mr* Grenville.”2 Shortly after this incident, Lord Sandwich asked the King that he he approved -a candidate for Steward of the University of Cambridge in the event of Lord Hardwickers death, saying that both Lord Halifax and Grenville had approved it.

Ihen

the King apprised Grenville of the matter, the latter explained that the Secretaries had just mentioned it to him, that he had not opposed it, ...but he thought it his duty to acquaint His Majesty, that upon talking with many of the Cambridge people, particularly the Bishop of Chester, he had told him that the nomination might probably do for Lord Halifax, but that it would be very difficult for Lord Sandwich, and Mr. Grenville said to His Majesty, that his Government and recommendation must not be disgraced.3 The Kingfs reaction was much less temperate than Grenville1s, for he ,fseemed displeased at Lord Sandwich for coming in that manner to steal his approbation from him; that he was trying to take the lead in everything, and that under pretense to Lord Halifax of following his opinions, he was getting the

1 Grenville Papers, vol. ii, p. 222, "Diary," November 12, 1763. 2 Ibid., loc. cit. S Ibid., vol. ii, p. 227, "Diary,” November 22, 1763.

start of him, and governing him absolutely.

Grenvillefs

reply to the King’s reaction is interesting and indicative of the former’s attitude regarding his colleagues: Mr. Grenville said that he could not say much to that, he believed it was so, but as long as His Majesty thought fit to employ him in his service he should go on straightforward, not looking much to right hand or to left, at his colleagues.2 One would find it difficult to imagine such an expression coming from a man like Henry Fox or William Pitt. In any case, Lord Sandwich continued to canvass for the Stewardship of Cambridge, leading the King to say to Grenville that he did not ’’approve of the factions of great Lords who 3

are making parties for themselves.”

By the spring of the fol­

lowing year the King was speaking ”daily with more and more aversion to Lord Sandwich, and appears to have a settled dis­ like to his c h a r a c t e r . Yfrien the King spoke of Lord Hali­ fax ”he blames the hurry and precipitancy with which he does his business, but complains of nothing else.”5

1 Grenville Papers, vol. ii, pp. £27-28. 2 Ibid., vol. ii, p. 228. 5 Ibid.,

vol. ii, p. 236,

4 Ibid.. vol. ii, p. 496,

’’Diary,” December 5,

1763.

”Diary,” March 14,1764.

260 By the spring of 1764, the King was resigned to, perhaps even satisfied with, the Grenville government. Lord Bute,

And so was

He told Grenville that

...he, Lord Bute, knew that the only safety for the Kingfs affairs was to put the Administration into Mr, Grenville1s hands; that the event had justified his opinion; that he meant himself to give every support to Mr. Grenville that was in his power, which indeed could only he by speaking to his friends, for that he was a private man, and meant to remain so.1 Grenville, after almost a year in office, and aware of the part Lord Bute had played in trying to get rid of Grenville, "answered him with great civility, but no overstrained pro­ fessions."2 On the very next day, as if to parrot Lord Bute*s words, the King told Grenville that ...he was sensible of the weight and authority that he had given to his Government, that it was always his opin­ ion that it would be so, but that now, all the world pro­ fessed it as well as himself; that it was necessary to lodge the power of government in one man alone, and that Mr. Grenville was the person in whom he wished to see it; that when Lord Egremont was alive, it was necessary from particular circumstances to make that power more equal in the Ministers; that he meant it should be in him; that to him he gave, and would give his confidence.* The implications of this conference of authority were that

^ Grenville Papers, vol. ii, p. 490, Diary, March 22, 1764. 2 Ibid.. loc. cit. 3 Ibid.. vol. ii, p. 500, "Diary," March 23, 1764.

261 Grenville would be master of his own house, and free from all disparaging influences from the outside. neither of these was to be true.

As it turned out,

The interview could not guar­

antee unanimity and support from Grenvillefs own ministers. In the latter case, Grenville himself told the King that what his ministers did was a matter of indifference to him. motto was, "Live and let live."

His

Such an aphorism may well

suit certain situations, but it is questionable whether it was a desirable one in this case.

To illustrate Grenville’s

indifference to the personal relations between his ministers, on one occasion Lord Chancellor Northington complained to Grenville about the Duke of Bedford, "which rather surprised him, as he thought those two Lords had been particularly well together."^ But if Grenville was indifferent to the character and interests of his ministers, the King was not.

In January,

1764, Lord Sandwich suggested that the two Secretaries, Bed­ ford and Grenville should dine together once a week to talk business.

The King immediately saw the evil possibilities

— and advised Grenville to ...treat of nothing there but public business, and not to

1 See supra. p. 258. ^ Grenville Papers, vol. ii, p. 238, "Diary," December 13, 1763.

262 come upon the arrangements for offices, in which he would be overpowered by the other three• Mr. Grenville assured His Majesty that it was his intention to do so, knowing that the Duke of Bedford and Lord Sandwich would always join upon that head against him. The King said he thought he would do well to join the Chancellor into this weekly meeting.1 The King was referring, of course, to the disposition of pa­ tronage, a share of which both Bedford and Sandwich persisted in trying (by fair means or foul) to obtain. It will be recalled that during the negotiations for the payment of the French debt Grenvillefs ministers had not been very helpful in maintaining Grenvillefs demands.^

Bedford,

especially, was in favor of extending the time limit for the payment, which placed Grenville at a disadvantage and gave M. de Guerchy a bargaining wedge.

The lack of unity in the

cabinet may have been one of the reasons why the affair dragged on for so many months.

Lord Halifax became "discon­

tented* with Lord Hertford, Ambassador to France, and wanted him recalled.

And when Grenville opposed the idea, Halifax

sulked during cabinet meetings. Nor would the ministers cooperate with Grenville in keep­ ing down the expenses of government.

In December, 1764, the

King was complaining "in many instances of Lord Sandwich and

Grenville Papers, vol. ii, p. 489, "Diary," January 28, 1764. 2 See supra, chapter VIII

260 Lord Halifax, and tells Mr. Grenville that they do not act farily by him, for that they are continually pushing him ^Mr. Grenville) upon increase of expense, and favouring everybody’s demands, and holding back at the same time every facility they could give to him in business relating to the Treasury.

Mr.

Grenville could not deny it. "I Again in February of 1765, Sandwich and Halifax succeeded in stealing an appointment from the King without Grenville’s knowledge or approval.

Up< until recently there had been an

office known as the Secretary of Embassy to Spain which Gren­ ville wanted to abolish with the return of Colonel Ligonier, believing that Lord Hertford would want such an office es­ tablished at Paris for a friend of his, a Mr. Hume.

Without

mentioning it to Grenville, the two Secretaries obtained from the King a new appointment for that office*

When Gren­

ville remonstrated with the King about it, "The King looked confounded, and tried to excuse himself upon the pressing instances of his two Secretaries, who, he said, did not do fairly in urging these expenses without Mr. Grenville’s par­ ticipation*"^ Although the exact extent to which Halifax was involved

^ Grenville Papers. vol. ii, p. 532, "Diary," December 5, 1764. 2 Ibid.. vol. iii, p. 119, "Diary," February 24, 1765.

in the handling of the Regency Bill is not known, one can be fairly certain that he contributed to its unfortunate conse­ quences.

It is true that he had no love for Lord Bute, a n d •

it is very possible that Halifax used the Regency Bill to im­ pede Butefs struggle for power by excluding the name of the Princess Dowager from the list of possible regents.

In any

case, it is established that Halifax advised the King to ex­ clude her name so that the Princess would not be openly in­ sulted when the House of Commons should move her exclusion. Whether or not Halifax gave the advice with malicious intent is a matter for conjecture, but the advice was unfortunate in the extreme for everyone concerned, especially for the Grenville government.

Grenville might have re-established

himself in the graces of the King if he had not maintained such a legalistic position in the matter.

But his action,

too, was conditioned by his dislike for Lord Bute, and he found too many good and real reasons for not giving way.

He

might even have saved or prolonged his administration if he had disavowed the action of Lord Halifax.

But this was beyond

.-the capacity and imagination of Grenville. In summary, it can be said that the ministers of the Grenville government were not unified either by disposition or vital interest.

Grenville was largely indifferent to the

actions of his colleagues, and did not provide a strong, dy­ namic leadership.

There was no leadership because Grenville

265 had a profound lack of it, and because there was nothing toward which he could lead*

How much leadership did the maintenance

of the status quo demand?

For actually, that was the only

important challenge Grenville could see*

And maintain it he

did, to the very end* Besides the negotiations against the Grenville government already discussed,

there were rumors of a change during almost

the entire administration.

In June of 1764, only a few months

after Lord Butefs pledge of allegiance,g

"Many people affirmed

there had been a meeting and conference between Mr. Pitt and Lord Bute..*"^

At the same time, nThe King continues more than

usually cheerful; seems pleased with the conduct and success of his affairs; and gives not the least reason to suppose that there could be any foundation for the report of an intended change in the Ministry.tf4 But the King continued to blow hot and cold upon the Gren­ ville administration*

On January 11, 1765, when Grenville

See supra, chapter VII. 2 See supra, p. 255. 3 Grenville Papers, vol. ii, p. 504, ^Diary," June 26, 1764. 4 Ibid., vol. ii, p. 505, "Diary,11 July 12, 1764.

266 talked with the King* he "found him; embarrassed and distant."-** On the 25th, the King talked about "the debate of the Thursdaybefore, but with not the least word in commendation or appro­ bation to Mr. Grenville."2

If there was one thing Grenville

could not stand from the King it was indifference or evasion, and on this day he "made a pretty long remonstrance to His Majesty upon the general state of things...The King heard him patiently, though with a good deal of confusion and embarrass­ ment*"^

On the 27th of January, Grenville again approached

the King about his manner, and ...renewed his remonstrance to the King, who received it in the same manner as the preceeding day, assenting to the evil, but neither pointing out the remedy, nor in­ quiring into the cause of Mr. Grenvillefs alarm, nor say­ ing any word of approbation of his services or past con­ duct.4 Grenville was frankly disturbed about the matter.

Before he

saw the King on the above occasion, ...he had a long conversation with Lord Mansfield, (Attorney General) to whom he imparted his fear of confusion into which the government was likely to be thrown, while menfs minds were kept at a gaze for want of thorough support and

^Grenville Pacers, vol.iil, p. 115, "Diary," January 11, 1765. ^Ibid.. vol. iii, p. 116, "Diary." ^Ibld., loc. cit. 4Ibid.. vol. iii, p. 116, "Diary," January 27, 1765.

26? countenance from the King to his principal ministers, and whilst that sort of distinction was suffered to be made between His Majesty and his ministers. Lord Mansfield seemed much struck with the deduction Mr. Grenville entered into, and a good deal alarmed at the disgust Mr. Grenville expressed; said he was sorry to find so much he owed Mr. Grenville.-** On the 18th of March, "Mr. Grenville found the Kingfs , countenance and manner a good deal estranged...,"^ but on the 22nd, "The Duke of Bedford told Mr. Grenville that the King had mentioned him (Grenville) to him with great approbation."^ Grenville may have been super-sensitive about the King, but, nevertheless, he was very much annoyed at the King*s apparent fluctuation. It was on the 3rd of April that the King first suggested the Regency Bill, while he was recovering from his illness. It was also on this day that the King slighted Grenville by not personally inviting him to the Levee. about it indirectly through Lord Sandwich.

Grenville heard Neither Gren­

ville nor Halifax knew the King was even in town.

This was

an offense significant enough to be included in Grenville*s "Diary,"4 it was like an ill-omen for the Regency Bill.

Grenville Papers, vol. iii, pp. 116-16, "Diary," January 27, 1765. 2 Ibid.. vol. iii, p. 122, "Diary," March 18, 1765.

5 Ibid., vol. iii, p. 123, "Diary," March 22, 1765. 4 Ibid. vol. iii, p. 125, "Diary," April 3, 1765.

268 Within a few weeks after the Regency Bill was under dis­ cussion, there were even more persistent rumors that the King was going to change his government.

The entries of May 9th

in Grenvillefs diary offer an interesting contrast.

He begins

by saying that the King expressed "more approbation of his con­ duct than he had done for a long time.11-*- But he also includes the following hearsays Lord Sandwich told Mr. Grenville that the Duke of Bedford had been in with the King, and had spoken very strongly with His Majesty upon the reports which were got about of an intended change, which he told His Majesty it was in vain to conceal from him, as they did at this time pre­ vail very much...(and) he must at the same time observe how destructive to his affairs this belief of wavering and uncertainty must be.2 If such was not the case on the 9th of May, it was soon to be, for on the 14th, Lord Temple received the following letter from the Duke of Cumberland, one of the chief nego­ tiators: You will be convinced that the subject that makes me give you this trouble is of consequence enough, when I most earnestly desire your presence in town, that you may give your sentiments on the most interesting situa­ tion of this country. Our master seals my lips ftill a personal interview.^ Even Grenville began to be suspicious when on the 16th

^ Grenville Papers. vol. iii, p. 159, "Diary,” May 9, 1765. ^ Ibid.. vol. iii, pp. 159-60, "Diary,” May 9, 1765. 3 Ibid.. vol. iii, p. 57.

269 or May the King refused to look at the Speech Grenville had prepared to be read at the closing of the current session of Parliament, and when the King told him that heplanned to journ Parliament for a time.

Grenville said he could

ad­

see no

reason for it, and the King gave no satisfactory explanation. Thus, Grenville drew the conclusion that a change of govern­ ment was in the offing and told the King so, to which the King replied, ffMr. Grenville, I will speak to you another time about that:

I promise you I will speak to you; you

may depend upon it I will speak to you. ”3- On the 17th of May, Grenville told Lords Sandwich and Halifax that ...when they saw the King they should in no shapeinter­ fere for him; that they were most perfectly at liberty to do or say whatever they thought became their own situ­ ations, but as for him, as on the one hand he was deter­ mined never to hold a publick situation by the interpo­ sition of any person whatsoever, so on the other hand, he was too indifferent about it to be anxious for the continuation of that he now held, and earnestly pressed them never to mention him at all, as he would never be an obstacle to whatever they should think right for them­ selves, nor call on anybody to take part with him.^ Two days later Grenville entreated the King "to consider well what you are about to do, and how far this change will affect your future happiness or reputation.

I do not say this in

respect to my own situation, for I would not, Sir, for any

^ Grenville Papers. vol. iii, p. 165, "Diary,tf May 16, 1765. 2 Ibid.. vol. iii, p. 167, "Diary," May 17, 1765.

270 for any consideration under heaven, continue in your service after I had lost your confidence. On this very day the Duke of Cumberland held a five hour conference with Pitt and Temple at Hayes, the home of Pitt. But, unfortunately for the negotiations, the long-awaited re­ conciliation between Temple and Grenville took place, a fact which no doubt had considerable influence upon Pittfs ultimate refusal to take office.

After several years of estrangement,

Grenville wrote to Temple on May 22nd: Nothing can make me so happy as to see you, and to ex­ press to you the sentiments which I feel towards you. I beg you will come immediately...1 wish not to conceal our interview and reconciliation, which will make so essential a part of my happiness. Who indeed had a right to object to either? I wait for you with impatience, and am your most affectionate brother.2 The interview between Cumberland, Temple and Pitt appar­ ently broke down at the very beginning.

Pitt wmade the ban­

ishment of Lord Bute a preliminary article, without which he 3 would consent to no terms v/hatsoever.11 On the 21st of May, the King told Grenville that .. .he had had a design to change his Government but not the part which was under his care; that as to him, he never had had any complaint against him, that he knew he

1 Grenville Papers, vol. iii, p. 170. 2 Ibid.. vol. iii, p. 43. 5 Ibid.. vol. iii, p. 173.

271 had served him faithfully, ably, and with attachment, but that he (Mr. Grenville) must know that in other parts of his Government there had been slackness, inability, pre­ cipitation, and neglect; that this had induced him to think of the change; but it was now over, and he earnestly desired to know if Mr. Grenville was willing to serve him. As to continuing, Grenville said he would have to see the other ministers before giving a reply, although the King wanted a categorical answer.

Grenville then went into a long

tirade against the King, saying ...that to his willingness and desire to serve him he had hitherto sacrificed every consideration of interest, plea­ sure, leisure, and happiness, nay, of health too, which was scarce able to desist the load of business he had la­ boured under; but as to the power of serving him, he knew not how far his Majesty, by this unhappy step, might have disabled him... (Grenville) showed the King the fatal consequences of the step he had taken; said it was in vain for him to conceal from His Majesty that all the world knew that the Duke of Cumberland had been empowered by His Majesty to make offers—to everybody from right hand to left, which offers had been rejected; that there was but one voice upon this subject, that all the world saw it to be Lord Bute*s doing, and contrary to the express declara­ tions made to his present Administration when they under­ took the Government, contrary, I will not say to stipula­ tion, sir, for I made none; I pressed no demands upon you; your Majesty regulated yourself Lord Butefs situation, told it to me, and authorized me to make it known. Your Majesty cannot but recollect that you did so. The King said, I do not deny it; but it is not Lord Bute that has done this. Mr. Grenville said the world would have diffi­ culty to be persuaded of that, and that it was now, more than ever, essentially necessary that Lord Bute should have nothing to do in His Majesty*s councils. The King said he had not.^

1 Grenville Papers, vol. iii, pp. 177-78. 2 Ibid.. vol. iii, p. 178,fT., "Diary," May 21, 1765.

272 The King then told Grenville 11to go and consult with these

1

gentlemen with all haste, and to bring him the answer immedi­ ately. The scheduled meeting of the ministers began at eight o 1clock that evening.

The discussion had hardly begun when

Grenville received a note from the King f!pressing him to come to him that minute.1*2

The King was very impatient and wanted

to know the conditions for Grenvillefs continuing in office. Grenville pointed out **how short a time had been allowed them for a deliberation of so much moment,”3

but the King still

pressed for an answer. Mr. Grenville said that previous to everything else they must have the strongest assurance of Lord Bute never hav­ ing anything to do, in any shape whatever, in His Majes­ ty1s councils or business. The King asked what else. Mr. Grenville added that they could no longer consent that Mr. Mackenzie should hold up the standard of minis­ try for Lord Bute in Scotland.4 Grenville then explained that that was as far as they had gone in their discussion, but the King was still impatient and asked what other demands would be placed upon him.

1 Grenville Papers, vol. iii, p. 180, "Diary,” May 21, 1765. 2 Ibid..

vol. iii, p. 180.

3 Ibid.,

loc.cit.

^ Ibid..

vol. iii, pp. 180-81,

"Diary,” May 21, 1765.

£73 Mr. Grenville told M m not such as Mr. Pitt had twice made to His Majesty, hut that they must be satisfied whether or no the Duke of Cumberland was to have the form­ ing of the Ministry. The King said no. Mr. Grenville said it was necessary for him to ask all these questions, because he could not serve two masters. The King told him and assured him that he meant to give him his fullest countenance and support.1 Grenville replied that he had been mortified that the King had withdrawn both his countenance and support, and then, ...conjured him, (the King) in the most earnest and solemn manner, if ever he had served him faithfully, or in a manner acceptable to him, that he would grant him the re­ quest he was then going to make to him. The King asked him what it was. Mr. Grenville said that what he en­ treated of him was, that if the continuing him in his service was in any degree a force upon his inclination, or done with any reluctance, he did conjure him not to do it on any consideration whatever; that he always had en­ deavoured to serve him with fidelity, duty, and attach­ ment, which had been the rule of his conduct towards him; and that he hoped that during the whole course of this conversation no word had dropped from him in which he had been wanting in respect and duty to His Majesty. The King said he always did behave to him in the most respect­ ful and becoming manner.2

^ Grenville Papers, vol. iii, p. 181, "Diary," May 21, 1765. 2 "And yet in the modern style of writing history, or rather the romance of history, Mr. Grenville has been accused of 9holding language to which, since the days of Cornet Joyce and President Bradshaw, no English King had been compelled to listen.T (Edinburgh Review. October 1844, p. 562.) It has been the fashion, too, to say that George the Third fhated Mr. Grenville beyond all living men;1 and that he would 9 sooner see the devil come into his Closet than Mr. Grenville;1 and other similar phrases which c M e f l y rest upon the authority of Horace Walpole, who personally disliked him, and who never lost an opportunity of sneering at him, not improbably because Mr. Grenville had refused to perpetrate some job in which Walpole was interested...and it has been said upon authority

274 Mr# Grenville added that no consideration under heaven could make him go through the task, or sacrifice every en­ joyment of his life, as he did now, if he had not His Ma­ jesty’s approbation while he did it* The King said: ’Mr. Grenville, the affecting manner in which you speak to me touches me; 1 feel the kindness of your behaviour to me, and you shall find that I mean to give you my confidence and my countenance in the fullest manner.’1 The ministers met the following morning at Downing Street and drew up the five following resolutions to be presented to the King: 1st. That the Kingfs Ministers should be authorized to declare that Lord Bute is to have nothing to do in His Majesty’s Councils or Government, in any manner or shape whatever• 2nd. That Mr. Stewart Mackenzie be removed from his of­ fice of Lord Privy Seal of Scotland, and from the authority and influence which has been given to him in that kingdom. 3rd. That Lord Holland be removed from the office of Paymaster General, and that office disposed of as has been usual in the house of Commons. 4th. That Lord Granby be appointed Commander in Chief of the Army. 5th. That the King would be pleased to settle the Government of Ireland with his Ministers.2 The King then asked Grenville if these were the sine qua non proposals, which Grenville affirmed them to be.

The King said

he would give Grenville his answer in the evening.

quitelas trustworthy as that of Horace Walpole, that upon the death of Mr. Grenville the King expressed to Lord Suffolk his great regard for his memory, and that he lamented the loss of his friend, ’that great and good man Mr. Grenville, who was an honour to human nature.’” (Grenville Papers, vol. iii, p. 182, n.) 1 Ibid.. vol. iii, pp. 181-82, "Diary," May 21, 1765. 2 Ibid., vol. iii, p. 41.

275 At eleven o*clock that night the King called for Grenville, and consented to those resolutions dealing with Lord Bute, Lord Holland, and the government of Ireland.

As to Lord Granby,be­

coming Commander in Chief, the King said that Lord Granby, in a conversation he had had with him, ,fwas willing for the pre­ sent to decline the proposition made for.hi#...11**' The King went on to say that ..•as to what respected Mr. Stuart Mackenzie, he would consent that the business in Scotland should go through other hands, but he strongly deprecated the depriving him of his office, saying that at the time he gave it him, he might have had a place for life, and that His Majesty had promised him that he should not be removed from this.s While Grenville insisted upon the ouster of Mackenzie, the King wanted his answer.

Grenville said he could give none

until he had seen the other Ministers again.

The following

day the Ministers met again and agreed to hold firm to their previous resolutions except for yielding Lord Granby1s ap­ pointment for the time being.

The Lord Chancellor dissented

from forcing Mackenzie out of office. When Grenville gave the "ultimate resolutions" to the King, the latter ...fell into great agitation upon the article relating to Mr. Mackenzie, and strove in every manner possible to have saved him, going so far as to say, fhe would disgrace him-

**■ Grenville Papers, vol. iii, p. 185.

2 Ibid.. vol. iii, pp. 185-86, "Diary," May 22, 1765.

276 self If he did it.’^ Mr- Grenville begged His Majesty would consider how hard it was to use such an expression to a servant for an opin­ ion which His Majesty ordered him to give, and begged he would rather dismiss him (Mr. Grenville) from his service than to put him under the cruel dilemma of thinking that he was forcing his inclination. The King said, 1!Mr. Gren­ ville, I have desired you to stay in my service. I see I must yield. I do it for the good of my people.’2 For the ’’good of my people” both Holland and Mackenzie were dismissed.

But the King continued to look for a way to break

the chains with which Grenville had bound him, for the latter states in his diary on the very next day that, ”During all these days the King saw the Duke of Cumberland constantly, and many people, and offers were made to people of all sorts and all parties, but the general tone was to refuse.”

At

the same time the King 11complained bitterly of the hardship put upon him in making him dismiss Mr. Mackenzie.”^ Ihile the King was thus broadcasting his ’’offers,” another reconciliation took place which was to affect the King’s

3* ’’The King’s reluctance about Mackenzie’s dismissal arose from the same delicacy of personal honour toward a faithful servant, that he had shown on another occasion for ’poor George Grenville himself.’” (See Memoirs of Lord Hard­ wick®.* vol. iii, p. 379, n.) 2 Grenville Papers, vol. iii, p. 187, ’’Diary,” May 23, 1765. ^ Ibid., vol. iii, p. 191, ’’Diary,” May 24, 1765. 4 Ibid.. vol. iii, p. 190.

277 government, that between Grenville and Pitt.

It was actually

a post-lude to the reconciliation between Grenville and Temple. On the 50th of May, Mr. and Mrs. Grenville went with Temple and Mr. James Grenville to dine at Hayes, Pittfs country home. At their meeting, "Mr. Pitt expressed pleasure at the recon­ ciliation of the family..."!

But in order to assure the con­

tinuance of this happy relationship, Pitt early in the course of conversation took occasion to say to Mr. Grenville, that in politics each had taken their walks and opinions, and there­ fore wished that intercourse might be of a friendly domestic nature, without entering upon political topics.

Mr. Grenville

gave readily and cheerfully in to this idea, said he sincerely thought it best, and each kept strictly to it.g On the 4th of June, Grenville heard that the King had told the Duke of Cumberland that ...the reason why he wished to change his Ministry was the disunion which reigned amongst them; that Sandwich and Halifax were pretty easy to be dealt with, because they were afraid to lose their places, but that they did no business; that the Duke of Bedford and Mr. Grenville were inflexible; not loving each other, and only agreeing to give him the law. 3

! Grenville Papers, vol. iii, p. 191, "Diary," May 50, 1765. ^ Ibid.. loc. cit. s Ibid., vol. Iii, p. 193, "Diary,” June 4, 1765.

278 All of the Kingfs statements “ bore some truth. Two weeks later, while Grenville was visiting Lord Temple at Stow, he received a letter from Lord Sandwich that negotia­ tions were under way again.-*-

He said that Pitt had been with

the King that day, and urged Grenville to return to London.^ Grenville replied: My return to town...uncalled for, will have the appear­ ance of a desire to embarrass the arrangement which he is now endeavouring to form, and which I need not tell you will come on whether I am there or not; as the King would not in the present situation communicate it to me, and without that I certainly should not trouble him upon the subject of it.3 The first conference between Pitt and the King was apparently quite successful, for on June 22, Pitt wrote to Temple, wUpon the whole, X augure much good, as far as intentions go:

and I

am indeed touched with the manner, and Royal frankness, which had the happiness to find.”4

From all appearances Pitt was

ready to take part in a new government, but the trouble lay in Lord Temple.

On the 23rd of June he was called to see the

King, and after a long interview with him, Temple refused to take any office. ■ rt —

■

■

Two days later he received a letter from

n ................... .........

1 Grenville Papers. vol. iii, p. 197, wDiary,!f Junel7, 1765. 2 Ibid.. vol. iii, p. 53.

3 Ibid., vol. iii, pp. 55-56. 4 Ibid.. vol. iii, p. 61.

279 George Onslow imploring him to take the office of First Lord of the Treasury*

Onslow begged him to consider

*. .what a use will be made, and what a language will be held, if this great Edifice falls to the ground, on your refusing to take the burthen on your shoulders, especially when Mr. Pitt has acceded to take his share of it with you. Consider only the confusion it will create, consider the great public points, and which are nearest to your heart, that will be gained by your acceptance, and irrevocably lost to this country by your refusal.3Onslow concludes his appeal by saying that if Temple accepts, "it will be the most popular administration that ever was in this country.” But Temple was adamant.

On this same day, immediately

after the conference with the King, Temple dined with Grenville and gave to Grenville the reasons he had given to the King for refusing to take office, "...the first of which was the diffi­ culty of forming a proper plan with regard to the House of Commons; the second was of a tender and delicate nature, and which he therefore desired not to explain.

The "tender and

delicate" reason was the fact that Temple and Grenville were now reconciled, and for Temple to have accepted an office might have jeopardized their friendship. The next day, June 26th, after everything seems to have been settled for Pittfs taking office, Pitt refused.

The

Duke of Cumberland, upon whose advice the King said he approached

*** Grenville Papers. vol. iii, p. 63, George Onslow to Earl Temple, June 25, 1765.

280 Pitt in the first place, gave the following explanation. I fear by what I understood last night from His Majesty, that we are all afloat again, Lord Temple having most peremptorily and determinately refused bearing a part in any shape, great or small, in the Administration to be formed. This declaration of Lord Temple1s prevents Pitt from taking a share, which indeed most thoroughly and heartily he had done. These circumstances, so dif­ ferent from what I hoped, and really thought were in a manner settled, must, I suppose, bring me to town again. **** By what I can pick up, Pitt is completely mortified, and I am heartily sorry for it, as he had entered more sincerely and cordially into the King*s service, nay, and went further almost than the Kingfs views.1 Grenville was still Prime Minister! had been restored.

Peace, apparently,

The scene was so calm that Lord Egmont,

First Lord of the Admiralty, ,!...was surprised Mr. Grenville did not upon this occasion, now that all the negotiation was at an end, endeavour to gain the King; that his Majesty must have a shyness upon him, after what had passed, and an un­ willingness to speak first upon it, and that a gentle beha­ viour from his Ministers, might have an effect upon him.”2 But the calm was misleading, for it was only the calm be­ fore the storm.

On June 50th, Mr. and Mrs. Grenville went to

the Drawing-room, and tfwere very coldly received.”3

During

^♦The Duke of Cumberland to Lord Albemarle, Memoirs of Lord Rockingham, vol. i, p. 214, in Grenville Papers, vol. iii, p. 202, n. 2 Ibid., vol. iii, p. 204, ”Diary,” June 28, 1765. 3 Ibid., vol. iii, p. 204, "Diary,” June 30, 1765.

281 the next ten days rumors again filled the air*

On the 8th of

July, Grenville wrote laconically in his diary, "Things con­ tinued much in the same situation."*^

When Grenville saw the

King the last time as Prime Minister he was already "weary of the scene, and glad to retire..."2

But he was not too weary

to engage in one more round with the King.

The following is

the text of his dismissal: I have this moment received His Majesty1s commands to signify to you his pleasure, that you attend His Majesty at St. James1 this day, at 12 ofclock with the seal of your office. I am very unhappy in conveying so unpleasing commands, as I have the honour to he, with great respect* &c., NORTHINGTON5 When Grenville appeared, the King informed him "he under­ stood that the Duke (Bedford) had resigned himself, and in the name of the rest of the Ministers, and that he had there­ fore found himself at liberty to form another Ministry, which he had accordingly done."

Grenville denied that he had re­

signed, "nor even if he had intended it, should have employed another person to do it for him..."4

The conversation that

^ Grenville Papers, vol. iii, p. 210. 2 Ibid.. vol. iii, p. 208,

"Diary," July 7, 1765.

3 Ibid.. vol. iii, p. 71. 4 Ibid.,

vol. iii, p. 211,

"Diary,"

July 10, 1765.

282 followed was a long, a heated one.

Grenville wanted to know

the real reasons why he "had drawn his (the King’s) displea­ sure upon him..."

The King said in general that he had found

himself too much constrained, and that when he had anything proposed to him, it was no longer as counsel, but what he was to obey." *

Mr. Grenville started at the word, said he did not know how to repeat it, that surely His Majesty could not mean that word to him, who knew that there was not that power 'on earth in whom His Majesty ought to acknowledge superi­ ority, but that it was the duty of his servants, sworn to that purpose, to deliver their opinions to him upon such as were expedient for his Government; but that as he could not recollect any instance bordering upon anything that could have given His Majesty such an impression, he begged he would mark it to him. The King named the proposing Lord Weymouth for Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; that he him­ self had thought well of Lord Weymouth, and had a good opinion of him, but thought there were objections to him for that situation. Mr. Grenville desired His Majesty to remember that Lord Weymouth was no nomination of his. The King said he knew that; but that he had espoused him be­ cause the Duke of Bedford did. Mr. Grenville begged His Majesty.wouldarecollect that he had at the same time asked him if he had any person for whom he wished it, and had shown His Majesty how little choice he had of proper sub­ jects from various circumstances; the King said it was true. Mr. Grenville then entreated His Majesty, from his known justice and honour, to clear him from the malice of his enemies, who he found had ventured to spread about that he was wanting in respect to His Majesty, so far as to threaten to quit his service, and to leave the Seals at the Closet door. The King with some emotion said, ’Never, Mr. Grenville, never: it is a falsehood,’ and repeated it once or twice. He then said he must trespass further on His Majesty’s goodness and desire him to say to him whether he had en­ gaged with Lord Bute to share the power with him, and had since betrayed him, which was another report propagated by his enemies, and he appealed to His Majesty’s honour whether he had not the most express declaration both from

283 His Majesty and Lord Bute, that Lord Bute should never publicly or privately intermeddle in any business whatever, and whether in consequence of this declaration, Lord Bute did not, at the time of Mr. Grenville1s leaving the Admir­ alty to take the office of First Lord of the Treasury, go to Harrogate, in confirmation of it, to Lord Halifax, Lord Egrexnont, and Mr. Grenville. That at the time when Mr* Grenville had the Seals given him as Secretary of State, he came in to act with Lord Bute, who was than at the head of the Treasury; that His Majesty had been pleased by Lord Bute’s advice to take the seals from him, and to appoint him to the Admiralty; that however hard this usage had ap­ peared to him, his respect and attachment to the King, xvhich was unbounded, and which had been the means of his making such sacrifices to his service as no other servant had it in their power to make, made him obey without repin­ ing. That in August, 1763, when His Majesty had been pleased to send to Mr. Pitt, upon that treaty not taking effect, His Majesty had called him back again to his ser­ vice, and again upon the strongest assurances and declara­ tions that Lord Bute was absolutely to retire, and not to intermeddle in any shape with the Government, and that he had His Majesty’s authority to make these assurances to all his friends. The King assented to all this, and Mr. Grenville went on to remind His Majesty of the success with which his service had been attended,— success far beyond Mr. Grenville’s most sanguine hopes, notwithstand­ ing which he had the mortification to see his service un­ acceptable, and himself lost in His Majesty’s confidence by the malice of his enemies. The King took occasion to assure Mr. Grenville in some part of this conversation that Lord Bute had no hand in advising the present change. Mr. Grenville answered, that he was glad that a person whom His Majesty honoured with his favour and confidence had not advised a measure which he feared would be produc­ tive of so much weakness and disorder to his Government. The King’s whole conduct was civil, imputing no blame, but giving no word of approbation throughout the whole conversation. Grenville then went on to defend the acts and principles of his own administration, and to attack what he had heard were to be those of the new one. Mr. Grenville told him he understood that the plan of his new Administration was a total subversion of every act of

284 the former; that nothing having been undertaken as a mea­ sure without His Majesty’s approbation, he knew not how he would let himself be persuaded to see it in so different a light, and most particularly on the regulations concerning the Colonies; that he besought His Majesty, as he valued his own safety, not to suffer anyone, to advise him to separate or draw the line between his British and American dominions; that his Colonies was the richest jewel of his Crown; that for his own part he must uniformly maintain his former opinions both in Parliament and out of it; that whatever was proposed in Parliament must abide the sentence passed upon it there, but that if any man ventured to de­ feat the regulations laid down for the Colonies, by a slack­ ness in the execution, he should look upon him as a criminal nal and the betrayer of his country* Mr* Grenville thanked the King for the justice he had done him in his appeal against the aspersions of his ene­ mies, gave him his papers to sign, went through an account with him, which the King gave him his word should never go out of his hands, saying there were those now in his ser­ vice to whose honour he should be sorry to trust, and with­ drew*-^

CONCLUSION Thus the Grenville Administration came to an end.

The

final intervie?/ with the King confirms those elements in Gren­ ville’s character which did so much to alienate the King from his Prime Minister; implacable, stubborn, exacting to an extreme degree, Grenville would— to use a paraphrase) rather be right than Prime Minister. Grenville was not a great political figure.

He scarcely

^ Grenville Papers, vol. iii* pp. 211 ff., "Diary,11 J[uly 10, 1765.

885 could stand beside the meager number of great men in his own century* let alone those who lived in the following century, such as Peal, Gladstone, and Disraeli, to name only a few. His administration is illustrative of the character of the political life in that century, and to some extent it indi­ cates the dearth of great political leaders, Grenville was not a leader.

He would have done ably in

some capacity v/here he was freed from the onus of determining policy.

He was a student and master of facts, or perhaps

more correctly facts were his master, and he would not know­ ingly misuse them. Aside from his political ineptitude, he was a man of integrity and his character was impeccable.

He did, apparent­

ly, at times, endure, though he did not encourage that Parlia­ mentary corruption which itself had almost become a political institution.***

"Whatever his attitude toward it during his ad­

ministration, he did not die without making one last stand against it, and that successfully.

The occasion was one in

which the name of John Wilkes again appeared.

He had Just

been ousted from Parliament again for his verbal attack on a Secretary of State, and he was replaced by a man named Luttrell to represent the constituency of Middlesex.

This had been

*** See p. 824 ff., for Grenvillefs move for an inquiry into the Civil list.

286 done by Parliamentary action, and the people of Middlesex in a petition opposed the move.

But the Petition was rejected

and Luttrellfs election confirmed. The rejection began a heated controversy, both within and without Parliament.

But probably more important was the fact

that it led to a change in one of the great evils of English parliamentary government.

It had been customary when Parlia­

ment (or at least the majority faction) received a petition resulting from a disputed election for Parliament, to subvert the electoral process and to use it for their own ends.

In­

stead of seeking justice, the powerful groups would seek their own political advantage, so that whenever a petition was pre­ sented they strengthened their parliamentary position by de­ claring one of their supporters elected, whether he held a legal title to election or not* The ouster of Wilkes brought the practice before the pub­ lic in such a way as to make a change imperative.

In addition

to the petition from Middlesex, the City of London presented Its own Remonstrance, and Parliament was planning to take some action against this Remonstrance when Grenville made a states­ manlike speech and presented a bill for reform.

In opposing

parliamentary action against the Remonstrance from the City

McCarthy and McCarthy,

ojd .

cit.. pp. 131 ff.

287 of London, Grenville said: The question now is, not what is vigorous, but what is proper; not, how the authority of this House is to be supported, but how the whole nation is to be rescued from destruction.-** (How well Grenville might have heeded these words five years before!)

He concluded his speech by introducing a measure which

took the consideration of disputed elections out of the sphere of politics and provided an impartial method which did much to remove the evils of the system.*5 Grenville tfwas not one of those who do either good or ill by halves.”3

Once he captured an idea he pursued it to the

very end against all obstacles.

”He was bold and resolute in

character, firm in maintaining his opinions, and little, perhaps too little, disposed to modify them for the sake of con­ cert, or to renounce them when shown to be impracticable.”4 Lord John Russell further describes Grenville: His chief fault was...too great reliance on the precedents in the file, and too obstinate an adherence to plans of

1 Pariiamentarv History, vol. xvi. ,_pp. 886-888, and Appendix III, p« vi«

For full speech see

2 See Appendix, loc. cit. 3 Trevelyan, op. cit.. p. 219. 4 Russell, John Lord, in Introduction to the Bedford Correspondence. pp. xxxiv-xxxvi.

288 government unwisely conceived and unfortunately pursued*** He could denounce with vehemence any failure of vigour, and glow with indignation against an exertion of power not warranted by law. But where the confines of legality and liberty had not been defined, he sided with authority; and when formal decision had been made, he mistook the fiction of parliamentary omnipotence for the reality of the Eng­ lish Constitution. The Grenville Administration was not a great one, but it contributed to the making of events of great importance. occurred at a turning point in British history.

It

It marked the

beginning of the decline of the nold colonial system,” for England stood on the threshold of a revolution in colonial and economic policy.

The American Revolution, for which the

Grenville Administration must share responsibility, was one of the primary factors in the making 6f this new policy. Englishmen began to wonder at the value of colonies after all, if eventually they were to be lost to the mother country. And when it developed that England’s commerce did not decline, but rather increased after the Revolution, the question of a fundamental revision in policy was raised. There were other elements in the change, too.

Seven

years after Grenville died in 1770, Adam Smith published his Wealth of Nations* a hook which set forth the doctrine of free trade.

By 1850, England had adopted this doctrine, and

the restrictive Navigation Acts were abandoned.

1 Russell, op. cit.. pp. xxxiv-xxxvi.

In the years

£89 that followed the Grenville Administration, men like Wakefield and Durham struggled for systematic colonization and more colo­ nial self-government.

In the half-century after 1770, England

took up the "white manfs burden," and assumed a responsibility for the betterment of her subjects. Grenville was also Prime Minister during a critical period in the history of the landed aristocratic class, a class that represented a decadent system which later was unable to stand against the great social pressures for reform and constitu­ tional development.

In Grenville1s age began a conflict be­

tween absolutism and liberalism that was to sever the American colonies from England, depose the Bourbon dynasty in France, and sweep all of Europe with a series of revolutions.

It was

an age which saw the rise of a new industrial middle class, V

and it was this class which struggled for the great electoral and social reforms of the 19th century. Grenville1s Administration came toward the end of an era in which political parties were largely factions competing for political power only; but it introduced an era in which political parties came to represent a large numbers of people who sought definite social objectives, e.g., protection be­ came the policy of the Tories, and free trade that of the Whigs.

By the early 19th century, the function of political

parties was fundamentally what it is today. These are only a few of the characteristics of the age

in which Grenville lived.

Grenville, like George III, was a

member of a class of leaders which was blind to the changes taking place in British life.

They failed to see that already

the struggle between royal prerogative and parliamentary con­ trol had demonstrated the strength of the latter.

Both authori­

ty and responsibility were passing from the sphere of monarchi­ cal absolutism to the sphere of responsible cabinet government. But neither Grenville nor George III understood the signifi­ cance of the forces opposing them.

They could not understand

because they tried to maintain principles of governance that were dying.

In their reactionary policies, they stood still

while England moved on.

They secured for themselves and their

principles only an interlude— an interlude that was followed by the greatest constitutional development in British history.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY SOURCES

1*

Almon, John, Anecdotes of the life of Rt. Hon. William Pitt, earl of Chatham. 7th ed., 3 vol. London, Longmans, Hurst, Rees, Orme, 1810.

2.

___________ , Biographical, literary, and political anec­ dotes. of several eminent persons of the present age, London, T. N. Longmans, and L. B. Seeley, 1797.

3.

___________ , Collection of authentic papers, relative to the dispute between Great Britain and Ameri­ ca: shewing causes and progress of the mis­ understanding from 1764-1775. London, printed for J* Almon, 1777. .9

5.

A collection of the most interesting tracts.

on the subject of taxing the American Colo­ nies. London, Re-printed, 1769, vol. i, no.5.

__________ The Correspondence of the late John Wilkes. London, Reprinted for R. Phillips by T. Gillet, 1805.

6.

, Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons from 1746-1760.

7.

, History of the late Minority. Conduct f prin­ ciples and views of that party during years 1762. 1763, 1764. 1765. London, printed 1765 reprinted with additions, 1766.

8.

, An Impartial History of the Late War. 17491763. London, Printed for J. Johnson, 1763.

9 . __________ A letter concerning Libels. Warrants, the Seizure of Papers, etc. London, Printed for J. Almon, 1765.

292 10. ____________ A letter to the Rt. Hon. George Grenville. 2nd ed., London. Printed for J. Williams, 1763. 11. _ ___________ , A Postscript to the letter on Libels, War­ rants. etc. In answer to a Postscript in de­ fense of the majority and another pamphlet on Considerations on the Legality of General Warrants. London, printed for J. Almon, 1765. 12. ________ , 13.

A Review of Lord Bute1s Administration. Lon­ don. printed for I. Pridden, 1763. , A Review of Mr. Pitt*s Administration. Lon­ don. printed for J. Almon. 1763.

14. Andrewes, J . , Memoirs of -the life and Reign of George the Third, London, Kihnersley, 1820. 2 vol. 15. Bedford, Duke of, Correspondence o f .the Duke of Bedford. London, Longmans, Brown, Green and Longmans, 1846. 3 vol. 16. Bisset, Andrew, Memoirs and papers of Sir Andrew Mitchell. £*B., Envoy to Prussia, 1756-1771. London, Chapman and Hall, 1850. 17.

Burke, Edmund, Works. 8th ed., Boston, 1884, vol. i.

18.

Byng, George,Torrington, 1st Viscount, The Bvng Papers: letters and papers of Admiral Sir George .9 and of his son, Admiral the Hon. John Byng. Edited by Brian Funs tall, London. Printed for the Navy Records Society, 19301932.

19. Byng, John, Torrington, 5th Viscount, The Torrington Di­ aries: tours through England and Wales be­ tween 1781-1794. Edited by C. Bruyn Andrews. Introduction by John Beresford. London, Eyre and Spottiswoode ltd., 1934-38. 20. Chatham, Earl of, Correspondence of the Earl of Chatham. 4 vol. Edited by the Executor of his Son, John, Earl of Chathan, and published from the original manuscripts in their possession. London, John Murray, 1838.

293 21* Fitzmaurice, Edward, Lord, Life of William. Earl of Shel­ burne . 2 vol., London, Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1912. 22. Fox, Charles James, Memoirs and Correspondence. edited by Lord John Russell, London, R. Bentley, 18531857. 23 . __________________ , Speeches of the Rt. Hon. Charles James Fox in the House of Commons. London, Longmans, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown, 1815. 24. George III, King, Correspondence of King George III, edited by Sir John Fortescue, 6 vol. Printed from the original papers in the Royal Archives at Y/indsor Castle, arranged and edited by The Hon. Sir John Fortescue. London, Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1927. 25. ________________ , Correspondence of George III with North. edited by W. D. Donne, 2 vol., London, 1867. 26. ________________ , Letters of George III, edited by Bonamy Dobree, London, Cassell and Co., Ltd., 1935. 27. ________________ , Letters of George III to Lord Bute. 17561766. edited with an introduction by Romney Sedgwick, London, Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1939. 28. Henry, Augustus, third Duke of Grafton, Autobiography and Political Correspondence of Augustus. Third Duke of Grafton. edited by W. R. Anson, Lon­ don, 1898. 29. Grenville, George, and Grenville, Richard, The Grenville Papers: being the Correspondence of Richard Grenville. Earl Temple. K . G. , and the Right Hon. George Grenville. their friends and con­ temporaries. edited by William James Smith, Esq., London, John Murray, 1853. 4 vol. 30. Hart, Albert B., and Charming, Edward, American History Leaflets, nos. 17-36, A. Lovell and Co., 1892. 31. Henley, Robert Lord, A Memoir of Lord Northington. London. John Murray, 1831.

294 32. Hansard, T. C., Parliamentary Debates. vol. 11-17. 33. _

_____ ■

Parliamentary History. The Pariiamentary History of England from the earliest per­ iod to the year 1803. 36 vol. London, T. C. Hansard, 1806-20.

34. Hume, Hugh, 3rd earl of Marchmont, Selections from the papers of Hugh Hume. 3rd earl of Marchmont. illustrative of events from 1685-1750. London, J. Murray, 1831. 35. Montagu, John, 4th earl of Sandwich, Private Papers. edited by G, R. Barnes and J. H. Owen, London, printed for Navy Records Society, 193236. Oswald, James, Memorials of the Public Life and Character of James Oswald. Edinburgh, James Ballantyne and Co., 1825. 37. Pitt, William, Correspondence, when secretary of state. with colonial governors and military and naval commissioners in America. London, Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1906. 38. Walpole, Horace, The Letters of Horace Walpole. 4th earl of Orford, Mrs. Paget Toynbee, editor, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1904. 16 vol. 39. _______________ , Letters of Horace Walpole. 4th earl of Orford, including numerous letters now first published from original manuscripts. London, R. Bentley, 1840. 40. _______________ , Memoirs of George III, first published by Sir Denis Le Marchant, Bart., and now re-edited by G. F. Russell Barker, London, Lawrence and Bulien, 1894, New York, G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1894. 41. Wortley, E. Stuart, (Mrs.) C. B. E., A Prime Minister and His Son. Earl of Bute and Sir Charles Stu­ art. From the Correspondence of the 3rd Earl of Bute and of Lt.-General the Hon^ Sir Charles Stuart, K. B., London, John Murray, 1925.

295 42. Walpole, Horace, Memoirs of George II. preface by Lord Holland "(Sir. Fox), second edition, revised, London: Henry Colburn, publisher, 1847.

SECONDARY SOURCES

43. Adolphus, John, History of England. 7 vol., London, John Lee, 1840. 44. Albemarle, George, 1. K., 6th earl of, Memoirs of the Mar­ quis of Rockingham and his contemporaries. London, R. Bentley, 1852. 45. Bagehot, Walter, The English Constitution and other Poli­ tical Essays, latest revised edition, N.Y., D. Appleton and Company, 1930. 46. Beer, George Louis, British Colonial Policy. 1754-1765, N.Y., Peter Smith, 1907. 47. Blauvelt, Mary, Development of Cabinet Government in Eng­ land. N.Y., The Macmillan Co., 1902. 48. Brougham, Henry Lord, Historical Sketches of Statesmen in the Time of George III. 3 vol., London, 1839—43. 49. Burge, William, Colonial laws and Courts. under general editorship of Alexander Wood Renton and George Grenville Phillimore. Reprinted from Burge?s Commentaries on colonial and foreign laws. London, Sweet and Maxwell, Ltd., etc., 1907. 50. Char ter ia, Hon. Evan, William Augustus. Duke of Cumber­ land and the Seven Years War. London, Hutchinson and Co., n.d. 51. Corbett, Julian S., England in the Seven Years War, 2 vol., London, Longmans, Green and Co., 1907.

296

52. Davis, Rose Mary, The Good Lord Lyttelton: a study in 18th Century politics and culture, Bethle­ hem, Pennsylvania, Times Publishing Co., 1939. 53. Dictionary of National Biography. London, Smith Elder and Co. 54. Dobree, Bonomy, From Anne to Victoria. London, Cassel and Co., 1937. 55. Doran, Dr.John, Lives of the Queens of England and of the House of Hanover. 2 vol., London, Richard Bentley, 1855. 56. Fell,Ralph,

Memoirs of the public life of the late Rt. Hon. Charles James Fox. London, J* F. Hughes, 1808.

57. Fifoot, Cecil Herbert Stuart, Lord Mansfield. Oxford, The Clarendon Press, 1936. 58. Green, John Richard, History of the English People. London, Macmillan and Co., 1883. 59. Green Walford Davis, William Pitt, Earl of Chatham, and the Growth and Division of the British Em­ pire. G. P. Putnam*s Sons, 1901. 60. Guttmacher, Manfred Schanfarber, America*s Last King: An Interpretation of the Madness of George III. N. Y., Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1941. 61. Hamilton, Anne, (Right Honourable Lady) Secret History of the Court of England from the Accession of George III to the death of George IV. includ­ ing . among other important matters, full par­ ticulars of the mysterious death of the Prin­ cess Charlotte and the murder of the Duke of Cumberland1s valet. Sellis. London, published by William Henry Stevenson, 1832. 62. Harris, George, Esq., The Life of Lord Chancellor Hardwicke. 3 vol., London, Edward Moxon, Dover Street; Stevens and Norton, Bell Yard and Fleet Street, 1847.

297 63. Hughes, Thomas S., (Rev.), History of England from the Ac­ cession of George III. 1760. to the Accession of Queen Victoria. 1857. 7 vol., London, George Bell, 1855. 64. Hunt, W. History of England from the Accession of George III to the Close of Pitt1s First Administra­ tion. (1760-1801), (Political History of Eng­ land) . vol. x, N. Y. , Longmans, 1905. 65. Ilehester, Earl of, Giles Stephen Holland Fox Strangways, Henry Fox. First Lord Holland. 2 vol., Lon­ don, John Murray, 1920. 66. Jennings, W. Ivor, Cabinet Government. N. Y., The Macmillan Co., 1936. 67. Jephson, H., The Platforms Its Rise and Progress. 2 vol., H. Y., Macmillan and Co., 1892. 68. Jesse, John Heneage, Memoirs of the Life and Reign of King George III. London, Tinsley Brothers, 1867. 69. Laprade, William T., Public Opinion and Politics in 18th Century England. N. Y., 1936. 70. Lascelles, Edward Charles Ponsonby, The Life of Charles James Fox. London, Oxford University Press, H. Milford, 1936. 71. Lecky,William E. H., History of England in the 18th Cen­ tury. 8 vol., London, Longmans, Green, and Co., 1882. 72. Liverpool, Charles Jenkinson, lsjfc earl of. Liverpool Tractate-18th century manual .of-procedures of the House of Commons, edited by Catherine Strateman, Ph. D., B. Y., Columbia Univer­ sity Press, London, P. S. King and Son, Ltd., 1937. 73. Macauley, Thomas B., Life of William Pitt. Boston, Hough­ ton, 1881. 74. Maccoby, Simon, 18th Century England, 1688-1815. London, Longmans, Green and Co., 1931.

298 75. Manners, ¥/alter E., Marquis of Granby. London, Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1899• 76. Mason, Alfred Bishop, Horace Walpole1s England as his letters picture it, Boston and N. Y., Houghton Mifflin Co., 1930. 77. McCarthy, Justin, and McCarthy Justin Huntly, A History of the Four Georges and of William IV, 4 vol., London, Chatto and Windus, 1901. 78. McDowell, Arthur S., The Life of Lord Chatham, London, Methuen and Co., 1903. (The Oxford Biog­ raphies.) 79. Mowat, R. B., England in the 18th Century. London, George Harrap and Co., 1932. 80. Mumby, Frank Arthur, George III and the American Revolu­ tion. Boston, Houghton, 1923. 81. Namier, L. B., England in the Age of the American Revolu­ tion. London, Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1930. 82. _____________ , The Structure of Politics at the Accession of George III. 2 vol., London, Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1929. 83. Rao, Ananda Vittal, A Minor Augustan^ being the Life and Works of George. Lord Lyttelton. 1709-1773. Calcutta, The Book Company, Ltd., 1934. 84. Riker, Thad W . , Henry Fox. First Lord Holland. 2 vol., Ox­ ford, Clarendon Press, 1911. 85. Roberts, Sydney Castle, An 18th Century Gentleman and other Essays. (George Lyttelton). Cambridge. The University Press, 1930. 86. Lyttelton, George, 1st barqn, Memoirs and Correspondence. edited by Robert Phillimore, London, J. Ridgway, 2 vol. in 1, 1845. 87. Robertson, Charles Grant, England Under the Hanoverians. London, Methuen and Co., Ltd., 1911, revised 1930

299 88. Roseberry, A. P. P., (5th earl of), Lord Chatham, his Earlv Life and Connections. N. Y., Harper, 1910. 89. Russell, John Russell, (1st earl of), 1792-1878, The Life and Times of Charles James Fox. London, 1866. 90. Sanders, Lloyd, Patron and Place Hunter: George Bubb Pod­ ding ton, London, John Lane, the Bodley House, 1919. 91. Selley, W. T., England in the 18th Centurv. LondonC. Black, Ltd., 1934:

a

_

*»nd

92. Stanhope, Philip Henry, (5th earl of) 1805-1875, "The FortyFive,” narrative of the insurrection of 1745, extracted from Lord Mahon1s History of England, London, J. Murray, 1869. 95. Mahon, Lord, (Philip Henry Stanhope), (5th earl of), History of England from the Peace of TJtrecht to the Peace of Versailles, 1715-1785. 7 vol., London, John Murray, 1858. 94. ___________ , Life of Rt. Honourable William Pitt. London, J. Murray, 1861-62. 95. Tassvrell-Langmead, Thomas Pitt, English Constitutional History. 8th ed., by Colemand Phillipson, Boston, Houghton Mufflin Co., n.d. 96. Thackeray, Francis, Life of William Pitt, 2 vol., London, printed for C. and J. Rivington, 1827. 97. Trevelyan, George Macaulay, History of England. London, N. Y., etc., Longmans, Green and Co., 1929. 98.

Trevelyan, George Otto, George III and Charles Foxf con­ cluding part of the American Revolution. N. Y., London, (etc), Longmans, Green and Co., 1921-27.

99. _______________________ , The American Revolution. N.- Y., etc., Longmans, Green and Co., 1899-1907. 100.

________ , The Early History of Charles James Fox. N. Y., Harper and Brothers, 1881,

300 101.

Turner,Edward Raymond, The Privy Council of England in the 17th and 18th Centuries. 1605-1784. 2 vol., Baltimore, The. Johns Hopkins Press, London, Humphrey Milford, Oxford Univer­ sity Press, 1928.

102. Van Tyne, C. H., Causes of the War of Independence. Bos­ ton, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1922. 103. von Ruville, A., William Pitt. Earl of Chatham, 3 vol., translated by H. J. Chaytor, London, William Heinemann, 1917. 104.

Williamson,James A., A Short History of British Expan­ sion. 2nd ed., N. Y., The Macmillan Co., 1931.

105. Willson, Beckles, George III, as Man. Monarch and States­ man. London, T. C. and E. C. Jack, 1907. 106. WTinstanley, D. A., Lord Chatham and The Whig Opposition. Cambridge University Press, 1912. 107. Wright, Thomas, Caricature History of the Georges. Lon­ don, John Camden Hotten, 1867. 108. Yorke, Philip C., The Life of Lord Chancellor Hardwicke. 3 vol., Cambridge University Press, (University of Chicago Press), 1913.

APPENDIX

APPENDIX I GRENVILLE'S SPEECH DURING THE DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS ON TAKING THE HANOVERIAN TROOPS INTO BRITISH PAY, DECEMBER 9-10, 1748 1

Sir: though I am far from thinking myself able to pro­ duce, without study or premeditation, a complete answer to the elaborate and artful harangue which you have now heard, yet as I cannot be convinced of the reasonableness of the measures which have been defended with so much subtility, I shall at least endeavour to show, that my disapprobation is not merely the effect of obstinacy, and that I have at least considered the proposals of the ministry, before I have ventured to condemn them.Whether we ought to think ourselves indispensably ob­ liged to maintain, at all events, the balance of power on the continent, to maintain it without allies, to maintain it against a combination of almost all Europe, I shall not now enquire; I will now suppose it for once our duty to struggle with impossibility, and not only to support the House of Austria when it is attacked, but to raise it mhen it is fallen; fallen by our own negligence, and oppressed with the weight of all the surrounding powers; and shall therefore at present only enquire, by what means we may af­ ford that assistance with most benefit to our allies, and least danger to ourselves. With regard to our ally, that assistance will apparently be most advantageous to her, by which her strength will be most increased, and therefore it may perhaps be more useful to her to find her money than troops. I doubt not but it will readily appear, that we may easily find troops which

^ Parliamentary History, vol. xii, pp. 1051-53

ii may be of more use and less expense than those of Hanover. It has been observed, with regard to the convenient situa­ tion of those troops, that it cannot now be denied, since they are acting in Flanders in conjunction with the British forces. This is an assertion to which, though it was uttered with an air of victorious confidence, though it was produced as an insuperable argument, by which all those who intended opposition were to be reduced to silence and despair, many objections may be made, which it will require another harangue equally elaborate to remove. That the troops of Hanover are now acting in conjunction with the British, I know not how any man can affirm, unless he has received intelligence by some airy messengers, or has some sympathetic communication with them not indulged to the rest of mankind. Hone of the accounts which have been brought hither of the affairs of the continent have yet informed us of any action, or tendency to action; the Hanoverians have indeed been reviewed in conjunction with our forces, but have hitherto not acted; nor have the armies yet cemented the al­ liance by any common danger, or shown yet that they are friends otherwise than by sleeping and eating together, by eating at the expense of the same nation. Nor am I at present inclined to grant, that either army is situated where it may be of most use to the Queen of Hungary; for they now loiter in a country which no enemy threatens, and for which nothing therefore can be feared; a country very remote from the seat of war, and which will probably be last attacked. If the assistance of the Queen of Hungary had been designed, there appears no reason why the Hanoverians should have marched thither, or why this important connection should have been formed, since they might, in much less time, and with less expense, have joined the Austrians, and perhaps have enabled them to defeat the designs of the French, and cut off the retreat of the army which was sent to the relief of Prague. But this march, though it would have been less tedious, would have been the designs of those who are more desirous of receiving wages than of deserving them; nor is it likely that those who required levy-money for trrops already levied, and who de­ manded, that they should be paid a long time before they began to march, would hurry them to action, or endeavour to put a period to so gainful a trade as that of hiring troops which are not to be exposed. This conduct, however visibly absurd, I am very far from

ili imputing either to cowardice or ignorance, for there is reason to suspect that they marched into Flanders only because they could not appear in any other place as the allies of the Queen of Hungary, without exposing their sovereign to the imperial interdict* It is therefore not only certain, that these troops, these boasted and important troops, have not yet been of any use, but probable that no use is intended for them, and that the sole view of those who have introduced them into our service, is to pay their court by enriching Hanover with the spoils of Great Britain* It is now to little purpose to enquire, whether there are any other troops that could have been more properly employed, since it is certain, that, whatever may be the general charac­ ter, or the late conduct of other nations, it is the interest of great Britain to employ rather any troops than these, as any evil is rather to be chosen than animosities between our sovereign and our feliow-subjects; and such animosities must inevitably arise from this detestable preference of the troops of Hanover.^

2 The measure was passed by 260 to 193, Grenville against

APPENDIX II WILKES' SPEECH DEFENDING HIMSELF IN*THE HOUSE OF COM­ MONS, NOVEMBER, 1763 1

Mr. Speaker: I think it is my duty to lay before the House a few facts, which have occured since our last meeting, because, in mv humble opinion, (which I shall always submit to this House) the rights of all the Commons of England, and the Privileges of Parliament, have, in my person, been highly violated, I shall, at present, content myself with barely stating the facts, and leave the mode of proceeding to the wisdom of the House. On the 30th of April, in the morning, I was made a pri­ soner in my own house, by some of the Kingfs messengers. I demanded by what authority they had forced their way into my room, and was shown a warrant, in which no person was named in particular, but generally the authors, printers, and pub­ lishers, of a seditious and treasonable paper, intitled, The North Briton, No. 45. The messengers insisted on my going before Lord Halifax, which I absolutely refused, because the warrant was, I thought1/ illegal, and did not respect me. I applied by my friends, to the Court of Common Please for a Habeas Corpus, which was granted; but as the proper office was not then open, it could not immediately issue. I was afterwards carried by violence, before the earls of Egremont and Halifax, whom I informed of the orders given by the Court of Common Pleas*for the Habeas Corpus; and I enlarged upon this subject to Mr. Webb, the Solicitor of the Treasury. I was, however, hurried away to the Tower by another warrant, which declared me the author and publisher of a most infamous and seditious libel, intitled, the North Briton, 45. The word 1treasonable1 was dropt, yet I was detained a close prisoner, and no person was suffered to come near me for almost three days, although my counsel, and several of my friends, demanded

Parliamentary Debates, vol. xvi, p. 588

V admittance, in order to concert the means of recovering my liberty* My house was plundered, my bureaus broken open, by order of two of your members, Mr* Wood and Mr* Webb, and all ray papers carried away. After six days imprisonment I was discharged, by the unanimous judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, fThat the privilege of this House extended to my case.1 Notwithstanding this solemn decision of one of the Kingfs su­ perior courts of justice, a few days after I was served with a subpoena upon an information exhibited against me in the Kingfs bench. I lost no time in consulting the best books, as well as the greatest living authorities; and from the rud­ est judgment I could form, I thought that the serving me with a subpoena was another violation of the privilege of parlia­ ment, which I will neither desert nor betray, and therefore I have not yet entered an appearance. I now stand in the judgment of the House, submitting with the utmost deference, the whole case of their justice and wisdom, and beg leave to add, that if after this important business has in its full extent been maturely weighed, you shall be of opinion that I am entitled to privilege, I shall then be not only ready, but eagerly desirous, to wave that privilege, and to put myself upon a jury of my countrymen.

APPENDIX III PART OF GRENVILLE'S SPEECH BEFORE THE HOUSE OF COMMONS OPPOSING THE EXPULSION OF WILKES, FEBRUARY 3, 1769 1

In the first session of this parliament, Mr* Wilkes was returned a member of it, and suffered to continue without any notice taken of himI The beginning of the present session passed in the same manner. Vi/hat is it then which has roused the languid spirit of the administration, and called down the vengeance of the House of Commons of Great Britain? Not the seditious and dangerous libel of the North Briton, not the impious libels of the Essay on Woman; not all the extra­ vagancies which have been urged in this day’s debate; all these were known before, and were not deemed sufficient for the exertion of the common censures of the law; but he has since presumed to write an insolent libel upon a secretary of state* This it seems is that capital and decisive offence, which is to raise our indignation to its highest pitch* The honour of our King, and the reverence due to our religion, were passed over in silence and forgotten* They are now to be thrown into the scale, to make up the weight, and to in­ duce us to espouse the quarrel of a minister. To accomplish this important purpose, we are to violate not only the forms, but the essence of our constitution* The House of Commons is to blend the executive and judicial powers of the state with the legislative, to extend their jurisdiction, that they may take upon themselves the odium of trying and punishing in a summary manner, an offense which does not relate to themselves, but is under the immediate cognizance of the courts of law. Tn the exercise of it they are to form an accumulative and complicated charge, which no other court, nor even they them­ selves, have ever admitted in any other instance. They are to mingle up new crime with old, and to try a man twice by the same judicature for the same offense. They are to trans­ fer the censures of a former parliament, contrary to all

Parliamentary Debates, vol. xvi

vii precedent, and to make them the foundation of the proceedings of a subsequent one* They are to assume a power to determine upon the rights of the people, and of their representatives, by no other rule, but that of their own inclination or.dis­ cretion; and lastly, they are to attempt to persuade mankind, that they do all these things to vindicate their own honour, to express their respect for their King, and their zeal for the sacred names of their God, and their religion* Thus are we to add hypocrisy to violence, and artifice to oppression, not remembering, that falsehood and dissimulation are only the wrong sides of good sense and ability, which fools put on, and think they wear the robe of wisdom. If the House of Com­ mons shall suffer themselves to be made the instruments in such hands, to carry such a plan into execution, they will fall into the lowest state of humiliation and contempt. An individual indeed may exempt himself from the disgrace attend­ ing it, but the dishonour and odium of it will cleave to that assembly, which ought to be the constant object of public reverence and affection. I have done my duty in endeavouring to prevent it, and am therefore careless of the consequences of it to myself. I expect that what I have said will be mis­ represented out of this House, perhaps in that place, where of all others a misrepresentation of what passes here will be most criminal. Those who have heard me must know, that I have neither invidiously aggravated, nor facetiously ex-... tenuated Mr. Wilkesf offenses. If he shall commit fresh crimes, they will call for fresh punishment, the law is open, that law which is the security of us all, to which Mr. Wilkes has been, and certainly will be amenable. Let him undergo the penalties of that law, whatever they may be, but not of an undefined, discretionary power, the extend of which no man knows, the extent of the mischiefs arising from it, to every­ thing which is dear to us, no man can tell.

APPENDIX IV GRENVILLE’S REMONSTRANCES WITH THE KING OVER THE KING’S WITHDRAWAL OF HIS CONFIDENCE FROM THE MINISTRY APRIL 28, AND MAY 1, 1765 1

The King started, seemed surprised, and asked Mr, Gren­ ville what was the matter, and said that he had ordered Lord Halifax to tell him of the alteration, as he himself had not seen him on Friday. Mr. Grenville told him it was true, that he did not come that day to Court till after Eis Majesty was gone, having been kept at the Treasury till half an hour after two o ’clock; that Lord Halifax had sent for him out of the House of Commons, upon the change he proposed relating to the Princes of the blood; that His Majesty must remember that when he first opened this matter to him it was on a Wednesday, (Lord Sandwich having sent him word that His Majesty that day was to have a Levee) that he received his orders, sat all that day and the next, ’till eleven at night, in the House of Commons; met the Council upon it on Good Friday (April 5), at Lord Halifax’s; went the next day into the country, where, whatever might be his opinion upon it, in duty to His Majesty, he immediately set about drawing the Speech, which at his re­ turn to town he shewed to His Majesty, who approved it; that he thought it his duty to offer his objections against it to His Majesty’s consideration, which he had done; that on Thurs­ day the 25th he had the honour to see His Majesty after the Dukes of York and Gloucester had been with him, but he was not pleased at that time to mention any alteration to him; that His Majesty was certainly at liberty to name his business first to such of his servants as he thought proper, but what he must observe to His Majesty, that whatever difficulty there was in this affair, it would fall heavier upon him who was to carry it through the House of Commons, than upon any

^ Grenville Papers. wDiary,|? April 28, 1765

one of his other servants whatever, and that if it should be represented to him, that Mr. Grenville had done it coldly or with slackness, he must take the liberty to observe how much injustice .would be done to him since, notwithstanding his own opinion, he had forwarded it in, the best manner he could, not only in the opening of it in the House of Commons, but likewise in the earnest manner in which he had urged it upon his own friends, many of whom had great difficulties about it, and if His Majesty doubted this, he referred him for the truth of it to the Duke of Bedford, who by various accidents had come to the knowledge of some of the particular instances; though he thought himself bound in honour as a gentleman not to name or particularize the individuals; that he had in the most dutiful, and, as far as he was able, in the most effectual manner, endeavoured to serve His Majesty, and that if he had had the misfortune to displease him, he begged to know in what it was; that he felt the marks of it sensibly and grievously, both as it disabled and discouraged him in the execution of His MajestyTs commands; that he entreated His Majesty for his own welfare to suffer nobody to persuade him to weaken those to whom he had entrusted his Government, since the ill-effect must inevitably fall upon His Majesty; that as to his Mini­ sters, it was of little consequence whether this or that per­ son filled the station, but His Majesty must still be King, and he hoped a glorious and happy King; that as long as he (Mr. Grenville) had the honour to continue in his service, it should be his duty, zeal, and affection; but he could not wish the continuance of it from the moment he withdrew his confi­ dence and approbation fromhim. He then said that it was late, he would not detain His Majesty any longer, and presented a paper to him which was a matter of form only* The King, dur­ ing this conversation, seemed exceedingly agitated and dis­ turbed, he changed countenance, and flushed so much that the water stood in his eyes from the excessive heat of his face; he two or three times interrupted Mr* Grenville, to say that he had bid Lord Halifax tell him of the alteration in the Re­ gency Bill; that he agreed in opinion with his servants that what regarded the putting in the Princes of the blood was not the proper subject to be discussed by a Council, that he did not think of it ’till some time after he had seen the Duke of York, and therefore had not named it to Mr* Grenville; besides that, he thought he would not like to interfere in a matter between him and his family* The King endeavoured to seem to understand Mr. Grenville’s complaint, as regarding the present instance alone: Mr. Grenville extended it.to the general with­ drawing of his confidence. The King neither denied or admitted the charge, said no

X

words of anger, nor none of excuse or softening, "but seemed surprised, and rather put on a smile of good humour when Mr* Grenville made his bow.l On the following Wednesday Grenville went to see the King again, and, ...told His Majesty that he hoped he had given some con­ sideration to what he had had the honour to say to him on Sunday, which arose from the concern and uneasiness he felt at the apprehension of having displeased him; that if that was the case, he only desired to know in what it had been. The King said, fWhy do you think so, Mr. Grenville? you know I told you for what reasons you did not hear of this business sooner.1 Mr. Grenville said the moment His Majesty told him he meant no slight to him in it, it was enough for him to be­ lieve he did not, but that he must repeat to him that His Majesty’s general conduct to him of late had been such as not only induced him to believe that he had withdrawn his confi­ dence, his countenance, nay, even his approbation from him, but that it was likewise visible to all the world. The King said he wondered he should listen to such idle tales and re­ ports, asked if he ever had complained of him, and said if he had had any reason he would have told him so. Mr. Gren­ ville said he was far from listening to idle tales and re­ ports, but to prove to His Majesty that he had not lightly taken this idea, he desired His Majesty would be pleased to promise him his utmost support and protection; that without it, he had told His Majesty he would not_engage in the scene; that even with it, he scarce could answer for the success, but on that, and that only, he would risk it, which he had accordingly done, forming no party to himself nor endeavour­ ing at any; that the success of His Majesty’s affairs had exceeded his (Mr. Grenville’s) most sanguine wishes, that he was therefore much at a loss to know in what he could have displeased him; that he had neither pressed him for grants, honours, nor pensions, that the secret service money was by a great deal less than under any other minister;^ that hitherto no untoward accident had happened which had risked his safety; but should such a misfortune befall him,

Grenville Papers, vol. iii, ’’Diary,” May 1, 1765. See vol. iii, pp. 144-45 for a comparison of the amount of secret service money spent by Grenville and preceding admini strations.

xi what had he to rely upon if His Majesty1s favour and protec­ tion was withdrawn? The conversation on Mr. Grenville1s part was much to this effect, and never produced anything stronger from the King, than the general words of asking him, why he believed this and that, (and that) if he had reason to complain he would tell him so. Mr. Grenville then passed on to his common business, and then withdrew. He told much of what had passed to the Duke of Bedford, Lord Halifax, Lord Sandwich, and Lord Granby, who all approved, and said he had acted like a man of honour and spirit, and the three former assured him they would bear testimony to the appeal he had made to them, if ever the King put the question to them. When Mr. Grenville reported this conversation to the Chan­ cellor, that day, at the House of Lords, he seemed colder upon it than any of the other Lords.1

This seems to be the first indication of the rift be­ tween Grenville and the Chancellor over the Regency Bill. Two or three days later the question arose as to whether the foreign-born Queen was to be regarded as a member of the Royal family and consequently eligible to.act as Regent. The Chan­ cellor maintained that when the Queen married George III she became a naturalized citizen with all the rights thereof, and was dissatisfied when a move was made to exclude the name of the Queen. Grenville at the same time was ”very indifferent.” (See Grenville Parers, vol. iii, ”Diary,” May 2 and 4, 1765.)