It must be admitted that the scheme of parliamentary reform divulged by the Earl of Chatham was by no means enlightened or impartial. In it no allowance was to be made for the growing importance of the commercial and manufacturing interests, the landed interests alone were consulted, and the country gentlemen, who had never been celebrated for liberal measures in their legislation, were to crowd the house of commons, and to decide upon the affairs of the nation. The Earl of Chatham himself, at a later period, seems to have doubted the efficacy of his plan of reform, for he admitted that the knights of the shires or the country members of the house of commons, "were not the most enlightened or spirited part of the house." All history, indeed, tends to prove that such a plan of reform would have proved abortive, so far as regards the liberty and well-being of the great body of the people, and the perfecting of the theory of the English constitution, so far as to make its political practice agree with its principles. There can be no question, indeed, but that all other interests would have been secondary to that of the agricultural in the consideration of a parliament thus constituted; whereas the aim of an enlightened legislature should be to secure the interests of every section of the community, whether agricultural, commercial, or manufacturing.

The Earl of Chatham signified his intention of supporting the Marquess of Rockingham on the 24th, when the great question mooted by him was to be discussed. On that day, however, it was announced that he was too ill to attend, and Rockingham also was distressed in mind by the melancholy suicide of the Honourable Charles Yorke. Under these circumstances, he moved the adjournment of the question to the 2nd of February, which was granted by the house; but before that time the Duke of Grafton, harassed by these commotions and scourged by the press, especially by the writings of Junius, had resigned his office, and the king had committed the charge of government to Lord North. At the same time, the state of the health of Sir John Cust, having induced him to resign the speaker's chair, Sir Fletcher Norton was elected his successor. The Earl of Halifax, moreover, was appointed privy seal in the room of Lord Bristol; Mr. Wellbore Ellis was selected to be a vice-treasurer in Ireland; Charles Fox was made a lord of the admiralty; and Mr. Thurlow was created solicitor-general instead of Mr. Dunning. There were a few minor substitutions and interchanges of offices, but these were the principal; and Lord North's ministry was, therefore, for the most part a continuation of that of the Duke of Grafton. The Marquess of Gran by's places of the ordnance and commander-in-chief were left vacant for the present, and the great seal was left in commission, with the commissioners already named.



DEBATES ON THE MIDDLESEX ELECTION, ETC.

Lord North, with whose administration commences a momentous era in the annals of Great Britain, was eldest son to the Earl of Guildford. In private life he was one of the most amiable and worthy of men, and he was a man of elegant acquirements. In public life, also, he was scarcely less honoured. Brought up amidst official duties, and aiming constantly at legislatorial distinction, he had acquired eminent skill in managing a debate, while his good humour and equanimity of temper secured to him a greater share of esteem and affection than was perhaps ever possessed by any other minister. Yet his estimable qualities and his political skill had not sufficient potency to disarm opposition. In the very outset of his administration, indeed, the opposition made him feel that he had not taken possession of a bed of roses; or, at least, roses without thorns. The principal object of the late debates in the house of lords was to procure a vote in favour of the Middlesex electors: with the same end in view, Mr. Dowdeswell now moved another resolution in the commons; namely, "That by the law of the land, and the law and usage of parliament, no person eligible of common right can be incapacitated by a resolution of the house, but by an express act of parliament only." This undeniable proposition placed ministers in a dilemma, for it was only a prelude to others, and if they agreed to it and rejected those that followed, they would seem to resist conclusions from premises they had themselves conceded; while if they rejected it, it would appear as if the house of commons was a capricious court; a court neither bound by law nor by the usages of parliament. The debate on the question was one of great violence; and in the course of it, Colonel Barre compared the state to a vessel in a storm which had parted with her mainmast (Grafton,) and was trying to sail under a jury-mast (North). The new premier acknowledged that the storm was great, but asserted that the ship was not compelled to hang out lights for pilots, as her own crew were capable of conducting her safely into port. And so it proved. North avoided the snare laid for him by moving as an amendment, "That the judgment of the house on the Middlesex election is conformable to law and the usage of parliament," which was eventually carried by a large majority.

On the 2nd of February, pursuant to notice, the Marquess of Rockingham made a similar motion to that of Mr. Dowdeswell in the house of lords. He moved, "That the house of commons, in the exercise of its judicature in matters of elections, is bound to judge according to the law of the land, and the known and established law and custom of parliament, which is part thereof" This was opposed by Lord Sandwich on the ground of improper interference with the lower house, which, if aggrieved, had the means of redress in its own power. Lord Sandwich was answered by Lord Chatham. In the course of his speech, Sandwich had alluded to the expulsion of Lionel, Earl of Middlesex, and the great Lord Bacon, "for certain crimes and misdemeanours," from which he argued that the peers now ought to take no more notice of the expulsion of Wilkes, than the commons then had taken notice of the expulsion pronounced by their lordships on the above-named noble offenders. To this point Chatham replied: "Neither of these cases bear any analogy to the present case. They affected only themselves: the rights of no constituent body were affected by them. It is not the person of Mr. Wilkes we complain of; as an individual he is personally out of the dispute. The cause of complaint, the great cause is, that the inherent rights and franchises of the people are in this case invaded, trampled upon, annihilated. Lord Bacon and Lord Middlesex represented no county or city: the rights of no freeholder, the franchises of no elector, were destroyed by their expulsion!" In his speech, Chatham declaimed with great severity against the gross dereliction of principle shown by the commons. They were, indeed, he said, the proper protectors of their own rights and privileges; but he lamented that they had, by their recent conduct, forgotten those privileges, and had added to the long list of venality from Esau to the present day. The vote of the commons which made Colonel Luttrell representative for Middlesex, he maintained, was a gross invasion of law and of the rights of election; a dangerous violation of the constitution; a treacherous surrender of privileges; and a corrupt sacrifice of honour. He added, that to gratify the resentment of certain individuals, the laws had been despised and destroyed, and that since the commons had slavishly obeyed the commands of his majesty's ministers, and proved themselves corrupt, it was necessary for their lordships to step forward and oppose themselves, on the one hand, to the justly incensed and intemperate rage of the people, and, on the other to the criminal and malignant conduct of his majesty's ministers: their lordships were the constitutional barrier between the extremes of liberty and prerogative. The house was excited, but the motion was negatived by a large majority. On the ministerial side, the Earl of March-mont then moved, "That any resolution of the lords directly or indirectly impeaching a judgment of the house of commons, in a matter where their jurisdiction is competent final, and conclusive, would be a violation of the constitutional right of the commons, tend-, ing to make a breach between the two houses of parliament, and leading to general confusion." In his speech, the Earl lost his temper and his discretion, imprudently hinting that if the opposition went one step further it would be necessary to call in the aid of Foreign assistance. He was called to order by the Duke of Richmond, and when he attempted to explain, he found himself unable, and Lord Mansfield was compelled to relieve him, by declaring as a lawyer and a statesman, that their lordships had no right to interfere in any determination of the commons. The Earl of Egmont pursued the same course, and declared that the people were guilty of treason in offering such petitions as they had recently offered to his majesty. The Earl of Chatham again rose, and after thanking Lord Egmont in an ironical strain for his lenity in allowing the petitioners to wear their heads, he defended the petitions as praiseworthy and constitutional, and re-asserted that the house of lords had a right to interfere, when either an invasion of the people's liberty was attempted, or an unconstitutional determination made. This was in reply to the statement of Lord Mansfield, and he then praised the abilities of that nobleman at the expense of his honour, honesty, and patriotism. Chatham next complained of the ministerial motion, and of the late hour—for it was midnight—at which it had been made. He proposed an adjournment for two days. "If," he exclaimed, "the constitution must be wounded, let it not receive its mortal stab at this dark hour, when honest men are asleep in their beds, and when only felons and assassins are seeking for prey." Ministers, however, seem to have acted upon the well-known adage, that "delays are dangerous." The adjournment was rejected, and at two o'clock in the morning Marchmont's motion was carried. Protests were entered against both decisions, the former being signed by forty-two, and the latter by forty peers.

Similar discussions led to similar results in the house of commons. On the 5th of February a debate was there entered upon, in which the opposition urged that the expulsion of Wilkes had been determined by ministers in council, and a motion was also made to bring in a bill to regulate and define the consequences of expulsion from the house; but the ministers in each instance were victorious. The exertions of the opposition, however, were warmly supported by a large majority of the liverymen of London, who busied themselves in getting up memorials and remonstrances, and hence they were nothing daunted by their repeated defeats. Ministers were, indeed, attacked upon other points of their policy besides the matter of Wilkes Thus, on the 2nd of March, Lord Craven, acting with the opposition, moved an address to the throne, beseeching his majesty forthwith to take proper steps for such an increase of seamen in the royal navy as should effectually preserve the honour and security of his; majesty's kingdom and colonies. This was made the medium of severe censures on the dismissal of able officers for their votes in parliament, and also on the entire management of the navy. Earl Chatham supported the motion, and condemned the conduct of ministers in this particular branch of the national service, as base and unworthy. In his speech he again adverted to his favourite topic; that of the secret influence which was at work near the throne. This influence he denounced as dangerous, base, unconstitutional, and wicked; and maintained that it had occasioned all the unhappiness of the nation, and created confusion in the government of the colonies. He then asserted that this invisible influence was still working for evil, for although the favourite (Bute) was gone to Turin, Mazarine absent was Mazarine still; and his influence by means of agents was potent as ever. Then, raising his voice, he exclaimed, "This country was sold at the late peace! We were sold by the court of Turin to the court of France!" Chatham then indirectly accused the king of insincerity and treachery to himself, personally, during the time that he was minister; asserting that after he had given his approbation to plans and measures one week, he would let them vanish into air the next, and that all his promises and assurances were broken through an in-invisible influence. The king was defended by the Duke of Grafton, who hinted that the intellect of Chatham was affected; but this only drew forth a repetition of the accusation in stronger language. "I rise," said he, "neither to deny nor retract, nor to explain away the words I have spoken. As for his majesty, I have always found him everything gracious and amiable in the closet; so amiably condescending as to promise, in every repeated audience, not only to forgive, but to supply the defects of health by his cheerful support, and by the ready assistance of all his immediate dependents. Instead of this, all the obstacles and difficulties which attended every great and public measure did not arise from those out of government: they were suggested, nourished, and supported by that secret influence I have mentioned, and by the industry of those very dependents; first by secret treachery, then by official influence, and afterwards in public councils. A long train of these practices has at length unwillingly convinced me that there is something behind the throne greater than the king himself."

It seems clear that when the Earl of Chatham made these assertions, the councils of the king were no longer biassed by the influence of the Earl of Bute; but, notwithstanding, the charges made all the impressions on the public mind which he could have desired. Some even declared that they knew the secret agents that went between the absent lord, the princess dowager and the king, and Mr. Dyson, Mr. Bradshaw, both placemen and members of parliament, and subsequently, Mr. Jenkinson (afterwards Baron Hawkesbury and Earl of Liverpool,) were expressly named as the principal of the parasites. The popular credulity on this subject appeared to receive confirmation from the conduct of the king towards the "good citizens" of London. Four days after this debate in the house of lords the common hall of the city took into consideration a memorial complaining that a petition which had been presented to his majesty by the citizens remained unanswered. This memorial, after the lord mayor Beckford had delivered an exciting harangue, was adopted by acclamation, and with three rounds of applause. At first the king refused to hear this memorial; but he at length consented, and it was carried up to St. James's on the 14th of March by the lord mayor, and more than two hundred common-councilmen, liverymen, and city officers. It was read to the king as he sat upon his throne, and perhaps the ears of royalty were never destined to hear stronger remonstrances than this memorial contained. It told him that secret and evil counsellors, combined with a corrupt parliament, robbed the people of their dearest rights, and that they had done a deed more ruinous in its consequences than the levying of ship-money by Charles I., or the dispensing power assumed by James IL, and which deed must vitiate all the further proceedings of the present parliament; it called God and man to witness that the citizens would not be thus cheated of their liberties; and that as they were gained by the stern virtues of their ancestors, so they should be preserved by themselves; and it concluded by praying that the king would dissolve the present parliament, and remove from him all evil counsellors. With a clouded brow the king in reply pronounced the contents of this memorial to be disrespectful to himself, injurious to his parliament, and irreconcilable to the principles of the constitution; and he asserted that he had ever made the law of the land the rule of his conduct, that he esteemed it his chief glory to rule over a free people, and that he had a right to expect from them a steady and affectionate support. The city deputation withdrew, amidst the manifest resentment of the courtiers, and the court instantly resolved to bring the memorial before the notice of parliament. This was done on the 19th of March, when it was moved by Sir Thomas Clavering, "That to deny the legality of the present parliament, and to assert that the proceedings thereof are not valid, is highly unwarrantable, and has a manifest tendency to disturb the peace of the kingdom, by withdrawing his majesty's subjects from then-obedience to the laws of the realm." This motion was warmly opposed, but it was carried by a large majority, and an address to the king was also agreed to in condemnation of the city memorial, both by the lords and the commons. It is said that the king graciously received this address, but that he thought the city magistrates ought to have been proceeded against by parliament for their conduct. On the other hand, the city and the people of Middlesex were offended by the conduct of the opposition, and the smallness of the minority that voted against the address, and they passed strong resolutions, expressing their discontent. The blame was chiefly imputed to the Rockingham party; and the Rev. Mr. Home—better known at a later date by the name of Home Tooke—who had begun to rule the democracy at the Mile-end and Brentford meetings, announced his intention of exposing that party; but this was prevented chiefly through the influence of the Earl of Chatham. Instead of this, indeed, the reverend orator employed his talents in getting up a strong petition and remonstrance to the king from the freeholders of Middlesex, and which was presented on the 31st of March; the Earl of Chatham having previously thanked him for his able exertions in the cause of freedom, and for abstaining from his proposed attack on the Rockingham party.



THE QUESTION OF CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS, ETC.

Ever since the famous Aylesbury case, in 1704, the house of commons had been sole judge of the qualification of electors, and of all other matters regarding the election of their own members. All controverted elections were tried before a committee of the whole house, the members not being bound to impartiality, either by oath, promise, or pledge. On the 2nd of April, Mr. George Grenville brought in a bill for regulating the trial of controverted elections, which provided that, in every case, the judicature should be transferred from the house to a sworn committee of fifteen members, whereof thirteen were to be chosen by the contesting claimants for the seat, out of a list of forty-five chosen by ballot by the whole house, and the other two named by the contesting parties themselves; one for each. The committee were to have full power to examine witnesses, papers, and records, and their oath bound them to a strict impartiality. This bill met with stern opposition from the ministers, and at one stage it was moved by Mr. Welbore Ellis, that it should be rejected, which was seconded by Mr. Charles Fox; but the bill was eloquently defended by Burke, and it passed into a law. It was carried up to the lords by Mr. Grenville on the 5th of April, where, as Lord Mansfield had expressed his approbation of it, and promised its support, no opposition was feared. It passed unanimously, and it seems to have had a very beneficial effect on the legislature.

Previously to the passing of this act, a bill was proposed by Mr. Dowdeswell to disqualify officers of the excise and customs from voting at elections The mover stated, that both classes were under the influence of the crown, and that the departments of the revenue were becoming so numerous as to render that influence incompatible with a free constitution. There was no attempt, however, to prove corruption, and the motion was rejected, as unfair in its attempt to deprive individuals of the rights of British subjects, on the mere presumption of venality. An act at the same time was passed for altering the law of privilege, so far as it extended to the effects and domestics of the members of either house. In the house of lords this bill was warmly supported by Lord Mansfield, and as warmly opposed by Lord Sandwich, who argued, that it was an encroachment upon the privileges of the peers. An inquiry into the accounts of the civil list, during the year 1769, was a popular subject in both houses about the same time. The expenses having greatly increased, it was inferred that the money was employed in the corruption of electors. Ministers opposed this inquiry, arguing, that as the civil list was solely the revenue of the crown, the crown had a right to expend it as it pleased; and that if an additional grant had been asked, then, and not till then, the expenditure might have been investigated, for the purpose of ascertaining the necessity of the grant, and how the money was spent. The motion was negatived, and other attempts to interfere with the management of the king's revenue met with a similar fate.

The debate in the house of lords on this question is rendered remarkable by the eloquent speech uttered by the Earl of Chatham. In the course of this speech he asserted that the minister who was bold enough to spend the money of the people before it was granted, though it might not be used for the purpose of corrupting their representatives, deserved death. Fie was reminded that he, too, when in office, had granted pensions, to which he replied, "It is true, and here is a list of them: you will find there the names of General Amherst, Sir Edward Hawke, and several others of the same nature—they were given as rewards for real services, and as encouragements to other gallant heroes. They were honourably earned in a different sort of campaign than those at Westminster; they were gained by actions full of danger to themselves, of glory and of benefit to this nation—not by corrupt votes of baseness and of destruction to their country. You will find no secret service there; and you will find that, when the warrior was recompensed, the member of parliament was left free. You will likewise find a pension of L1,500 a year to Lord Camden. I recommended his lordship to be chancellor; his public and private virtues were acknowledged by all; they made his station more precarious. I could not reasonably expect from him that he would quit the chief-justiceship of the common pleas, which he held for life, and put himself in the power of those who were not to be trusted, to be dismissed from the chancery perhaps the day after his appointment. The public has not been deceived by his conduct. My suspicions have been justified. His integrity has made him once more a poor and private man; he was dismissed for the opinion he gave in favour of the right of election in the people." Here the noble orator was interrupted by loud cries of "To the bar, to the bar," and Lord Marchmont moved that his words should be taken down. Chatham himself seconded this motion: "My words," he thundered forth in an indignant tone, "My words remain unretracted, unexplained, and reaffirmed. I desire to know whether I am condemned or acquitted, and whether I may still presume to hold up my head as high as the noble lord who moved to have my words taken down." Chatham paused for a reply, and none being given, he continued, "I will trust no sovereign in the world with the means of purchasing the liberties of the people. When I had the honour of being the confidential keeper of the king's intention, he assured me that he never intended to exceed the allowance which was made by parliament, and therefore, my lords, at a time when there are no marks of personal dissipation in the king—at a time when there are no marks of any considerable sums having been expended to procure the secrets of our enemies—that a request of an inquiry into the expenditure of the civil list should be refused, is to me most extraordinary. Does the King of England want to build a palace equal to his rank and dignity? Does he want to encourage the polite and useful arts? Does he mean to reward the hardy veteran who has defended his quarrel in many a rough campaign, whose salary does not equal that of some of your servants? Or does he mean, by drawing the purse-strings of his subjects, to spread corruption through the people, to procure a parliament, like a packed jury, ready to acquit his ministers at all adventures? I do not say, my lords, that corruption lies here, or that corruption lies there; but if any gentleman in England were to ask me whether I thought both houses of parliament were bribed, I should laugh in his face and say, 'Sir it is not so.'" Chatham concluded by saying that an inquiry into the state and expenditure of the civil list was proper, just, and expedient; and that a refusal of it would elicit ridicule and exhibit folly. Nevertheless the motion was negatived.



DEBATES ON AMERICA.

A petition was presented to parliament by the English merchants trading with America, representing that, in consequence of the duties and taxes, the discontents of the Americans, and their combinations to prevent the importation of goods from England, their trade had gone to ruin; and praying for the intervention of the legislature. In consequence of this, a bill was proposed by Lord North, to repeal all the American taxes and duties except tea. In proposing this repeal he censured the Revenue Act only as an inexpedient or unproductive impost, and not as an illegal or impolitic claim. The duty on tea, he said, was continued to maintain the right of taxing the Americans, and it could not be supposed that an impost of three pence per pound on an article from which one shilling was deducted when exported to America, would offend the colonists, unless they were determined upon a rebellion. Mr. Grenville, the parent of the Stamp Act, argued that he had at least acted systematically, and that in imposing the stamp duties he had reason to think that they would be paid. The succeeding ministry, he said, had repealed that act, but had re-affirmed the right of parliament to tax the colonies, by laying duties upon unwise and anti-commercial principles: duties which were far more odious to the colonies than his Stamp Act. His opinion was, therefore, that the ministers must now give up, or stand by the whole. A partial repeal, he added, will not do: the Americans would not rest satisfied with any thing short of the renunciation by parliament of the right to tax them in any way, either externally or internally. In this General Pownall coincided, and he proposed as an amendment, that the repeal should be extended to all articles, as the only way of quieting the colonies. This amendment was supported by General Conway, Colonel Barre, and Sir William Meredith, but it was rejected, and leave was given to bring in North's bill. A subsequent motion to repeal the duty on tea was also lost, and the act passed according to North's first proposal.



RELEASE OF WILKES.

On the 12th of April, the term of Wilkes's imprisonment having expired, he was set at liberty. He was no sooner freed from confinement than he recommenced his system of agitation. Everywhere he harangued on his sufferings, and declared that he was ready to die in the cause of liberty. He was considered a martyr by the populace, and in both houses he had his friends. On the 1st of May, the Earl of Chatham, after arranging his plan of attack with Temple, Rockingham, Shelburn, and others, stood up in the house of lords and presented a bill for reversing the adjudications of the house of commons, whereby John Wilkes, Esq. had been adjudged incapable of being elected a member to serve in this present parliament, and the freeholders of the county of Middlesex, had been deprived of one of their legal representatives. In descanting on this, Chatham declared that a violent outrage had been committed against everything dear and sacred to Englishmen. He then made some observations on the new state arithmetic by which Colonel Luttrel's 296 votes had been held to be a greater number than Wilkes's 1143! This, he said, was flying in the face of all law and freedom: a robbery of the liberty of freeholders; and making the birthrights of Englishmen a mere farce. He then represented Colonel Luttrell as sitting in the lap of John Wilkes, and the majority of the house as being turned into a state engine. He added, in conclusion, "I am afraid this measure originated too near the throne. I am sorry for it; but I hope his majesty will soon open his eyes, and see it in all its deformity." Lord Mansfield opposed the Earl of Chatham. He contended that the house had no right to interfere with the decisions of the commons; that those decisions were legal; that in consequence of previous votes and sentences, Wilkes was nobody in the eye of the law; and that, though the freeholders gave their votes, it was for the house of commons to judge as to the point of qualification. Lord Camden replied, that Lord Mansfield was delivering unconstitutional doctrines, and that Wilkes had been expelled in consequence of a secret influence which had said, "Mr. Wilkes shall not sit." He also asserted that the judgment of the commons on the Middlesex election was a worse wound in the constitution than any of those inflicted in the reign of Charles I., when the nation had no parliament; and he expressed a hope that if this bill should be rejected, the good sense and spirit of the people would persevere session after session, till the judgment of parliament should be revoked. The bill was rejected, and thirty-eight peers signed a protest.

When this bill was lost, the Earl of Chatham demanded that the house should be summoned on the 4th, as he had a motion to make of great importance relative to the king. On the day appointed, his lordship moved, "That the advice inducing his majesty to give the answer to the late address, remonstrance, and petition of the lord mayor, aldermen, and livery of London, was of a most dangerous tendency, inasmuch as thereby the exercise of the rights of the subject to petition the king for redress of grievances, to complain of violations of the freedom of election, to pray dissolution of parliament, and to point out malpractices in administration, to urge the removal of evil ministers, etc., had been indiscriminately checked with reprimand; and the afflicted citizens of London had heard from the throne itself, that the contents of their humble addresses could not but be considered by his majesty as disrespectful, injurious, etc." The noble lord said that an answer so harsh as this exceeded all precedent in the history of this country; that the very essence of the constitution not only permitted, but required petitioning; and that the Stuarts themselves never dared to prevent the practice. He then eulogized the lord mayor and the liverymen of London, and in conclusion, pronounced Colonel Luttrell as a mere nominee thrust in by the enemies of the law and constitution. The motion was negatived by a large majority.

{GEORGE II. 1769-1771}



AMERICAN AFFAIRS.

On the 1st of May, the opposition in the house of commons called for the correspondence of the American colonies, and subsequently Mr. Burke moved eight resolutions relating to the troubles in those colonies, and censuring the plan ministers were pursuing. The previous question was carried against the first of these resolutions, the second, third, and fourth were negatived, and the previous question was carried against the remainder. Similar resolutions were moved in the house of lords by the Duke of Richmond; but they were all negatived by a large majority. On the 14th, however, nothing daunted, the Earl of Chatham coupled the discontents of America with those in England and Ireland, and founded a motion on them for an address to dissolve the parliament. He moved, "That an humble address be presented to his majesty, most dutifully and earnestly beseeching him, that in the dangerous state wherein his kingdoms are involved, from the high dissatisfactions generally prevailing at home, and from the most alarming disorders which have unhappily manifested themselves in his American dominions, his majesty will, in his great wisdom and necessary care, to prevent more fatal mischiefs, be graciously pleased to take the recent and genuine sense of his people, by dissolving this present parliament, and calling, with all convenient dispatch, a new parliament." In his speech he declared that the house of commons had not the confidence of the people; and in speaking of the mode of reforming that assembly, he said, "Instead of depriving a county of its representatives, one or more members ought to be added to its representation, in order to counter-balance the weight of corrupt and venal boroughs." The house, however, would not listen to his arguments: a loud cry of "Question, question," was raised, and the motion was rudely negatived. But if Chatham was not listened to in parliament, he was venerated for his recent opposition to the measures of government by the people. On the same day, the common council of London carried a vote of thanks to him, for the zeal he had exhibited in support of their sacred privileges and the right of election; and also for his declaration that he would use his best endeavours to restore the house of commons to its purity, by shortening the duration of its term, and introducing a more equal representation.



RIOTS AT BOSTON.

While both houses of parliament were carrying on a wordy war, matters had assumed a more serious aspect in America. Committees had been appointed in nearly all the principal sea-ports of the colonies, to examine cargoes arriving from Great Britain, and to report to their constituents how far the act of association was carried into effect, or how far infringed Meetings of the association were regularly held at Faneuil Hall, Boston, and votes of censure were passed upon all who introduced or sold any of the prohibited goods. The names of such offenders were, indeed, regularly published in the newspapers, with comments appended to them, holding them up to the public as selfish slaves and traitors. A few, however, it would appear, were permitted to make a market, by selling the prohibited articles, which could only be purchased from their shops; and this becoming notorious, one Theophius Lillie, a tradesman at Boston, resolved to sell what was thus sold by others. In order to point him out as one whose shop was to be shunned, the mob placed a rude figure at his door, and a person named Richardson, either a friend or a servant of Lillies, attempted to remove the nuisance, and being defeated in his design by the mob, who pelted him with stones, he took up a loaded gun and fired upon his assailants from within doors. The shot killed a boy, who was forthwith recorded in the newspapers as the first martyr in the cause of liberty. He was, in truth, the first that was sacrificed, but the blow proceeded from the hand of a persecuted American, and not from the hand of an Englishman. It was not long, however, before the English were involved in quarrels with the Americans, which resulted in the loss of life. The boldness of the Bostonians seems daily to have increased after the above-mentioned incident. It was in vain that merchants implored even to keep the goods they had imported in store, as if bonded, until the duties in England should be repealed: they were compelled to send them back to those who had shipped them. At the same time, it was shrewdly suspected that several of the Bostonian leaders still imported and sold goods largely; or, at least, permitted goods to be imported in their vessels. The people of New York, indeed, taxed the Bostonians with unfair and selfish dealings, and renounced the non-importation agreement. This gave rise to mutual recrimination between these two states: the New Yorkers called the Bostonians pedlars, and the Bostonians said that the New Yorkers were no patriots. At the same time, the Bostonians were fierce in their hatred of the English government and its measures. If they acted with duplicity in the matter of trade, they were at least consistent in their denunciations against all connection with England. The soldiers quartered in Boston were subject to constant insults from them, and were continually interrupted in their duty. All classes conceived that as they had not been called in by the civil magistrates of the place, that their presence was illegal, and that every means employed to hasten their departure, or make their stay uncomfortable was laudable. Hence, no sentinel could stand in his place without being insulted; and it was too much to expect from human nature, that the soldiers should suffer continual insult without retorting upon theis adversaries. Some alleged that Colonel Dalrymple and his officers should have kept their men separate from the inhabitants; but this could not have been done, except by keeping them prisoners in their quarters, and by discontinuing the practice of mounting guard at the government offices. It was easy to foresee, therefore, that sooner or later disastrous consequences would ensue. And this was rendered more certain, because government had not sent a sufficient number of troops to keep the populace of Boston in awe. As soon as the arrival of troops at Boston was known at home, General Pownal had pointed out the error, stating that if they intended to govern the country by military force, they had not sent sufficient troops; and that if they did not intend this, they had sent too many. The people of Boston, he said, were set in array against the military; that though the sword was not drawn, it was ready to leap from the scabbard; and that though the word for action was not yet given, mischief was on tip-toe, and the slightest circumstance would set it on foot. These remarks were founded in truth. The Boston newspapers gave insertion to a fictitious narrative of a defeat of a body of soldiers by the people of New York, and to a series of fictions which represented the English troops as a set of poltroons who would quail before the sons of liberty. While these reflections were fresh in the minds of the soldiers, one of them was involved in a quarrel, and was beaten by several Bostonians, who were rope-makers belonging to the establishment of Mr. John Gray. Incensed at the ill-treatment he had received, twelve of his comrades returned with him to the spot and fell upon the rope-makers, and compelled them to take refuge in flight. This served as a prelude to a more serious conflict. Meetings were held by the mob, who decided upon attacking the soldiers, and driving them out of Boston. The day appointed for this was the 5th of March, and on the evening of that day parties from all quarters assembled, armed with sticks and clubs, and made an attack upon some of the troops in Dock-square. An officer appeared, who ordered the men to their bai—racks, and they with difficulty escaped thither. They were followed by the mob, who dared them to come out; and their rage increasing, the mob began to tear up the stalls of the market-place in Dock-square, and swore that they would attack the main-guard. Some peaceable citizens exerted themselves to allay their fury, and they had well nigh succeeded in persuading many of them to retire, when a tall man in a red cloak and white wig appeared among them, and incited them by a brief harangue to carry out their design. His discourse was followed by shouts of "To the main guard! To the main guard! We will destroy the soldiers!" The mob then separated into three divisions, each of which took separate roads. One of these divisions in their route passed by the Custom-house, and a boy pointing to the sentinel on duty there, asserted that he was the man who had knocked him down. A loud cry was instantly raised to kill him, and the sentinel loaded his gun by way of intimidating them. Nothing daunted, however, they first pelted him with every thing that came to hand, and then, seeing his reluctance to fire, closed upon him, and compelled him to retreat to the door of the Custom-house. He sought admittance, but those within were afraid of opening the door, and the sentinel then shouted for assistance to the main guard which was within hearing. A corporal and six privates were sent by Captain Preston to his rescue, while he followed at a short distance. Their guns were unloaded; but as they advanced, they found the mob increasing, and were pelted so pitilessly by them on every hand, and so grossly insulted by opprobrious language, that they loaded them and fixed on their bayonets. Still they were reluctant to fire; and when the mob pressed in upon them, they merely used their weapons to keep them off. At length a certain mulatto named Crispus Attucks, with others dressed like sailors, gave three cheers, hemmed in the soldiers, and struck at their muskets with clubs, exclaiming to those behind, "Come forward, they dare not fire; let us kill them, etc." Attucks aimed a blow at Captain Preston, who was begging the rioters to desist, and keeping his men quiet, and in doing so he not only hit the Captain on his arm, but struck down one of the men's muskets, and then seized his bayonet. Some persons behind Captain Preston now urged the soldiers to fire, and the private whose musket had been knocked out of his hand having recovered it, fired at the mulatto, who fell mortally wounded. The other soldiers now successively fired off their pieces, and three persons were killed, while others were wounded more or less dangerously. The mob retreated, but they re-collected in an adjoining street, with dreadful yells, and the drums beat to arms. It seemed as if a combat of the fiercest kind was about to take place; but certain persons who had been gliding about the mob, urging them on to acts of violence, now thought proper to persuade them to retire. The storm was hushed for that night; but early in the morning the mob again collected in large numbers. At the same time, the lieutenant-governor held a council, and the magistrates and chief citizens met in full assembly, and chose a committee. The committee soon waited upon the governor and council, and declared that nothing could restore peace to the town but the immediate removal of the troops. Colonel Dalrymple proposed that the 29th regiment, whose men had been engaged in the riot, should remove to Castle William, and that the 14th regiment should remain. This was reported to the assembly; but another deputation demanded the total and immediate removal of all the troops, as the only means of tranquillizing the town. The governor was told that he must not think the demand proceeded from a set of vagabonds, for that people of the best character were determined, that if the troops were not voluntarily removed, they should be expelled by force. A force of ten thousand men, it was stated, were at their beck, and these were determined to destroy the troops if not removed, albeit it might be called rebellion. The governor first flatly refused to accede to this demand; he then wavered in his determination, and finally he agreeded to divide the responsibility of removing them with Colonel Dalrymple and the members of the council, and the troops were ordered to march to Castle William. Thus successful the Bostonians grew more bold in their opposition to the English government. The newspapers represented the affair of the 5th of March as a deliberate murder on the part of the troops, and nothing was neglected to exasperate the public mind and perpetuate the memory of "the bloody and inhuman massacre." Yet when Captain Preston and his men were put upon their trials, American judges and a jury from among the citizens of Boston, were compelled to admit that they had acted only in self-defence. Their verdict was, that Captain Preston and six of the solders were not guilty, and that two, Montgomery, who shot Crispus Attucks, and Killroy, who was proved to have shot another man, were not guilty of murder but of manslaughter only. These two prayed the benefit of clergy, which was allowed, and each being burnt in the hand in open court, they were discharged like their comrades. In the course of the trial, Judge Lynde declared that the affair turned out to the disgrace of every person concerned against Captain Preston, and to the shame of the people of Boston in general.



THE PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

News of the disturbances in Boston arrived before the close of this session; but hopes being entertained that the late bill would have the effect of conciliating the Americans, it was deemed proper to abstain from any investigation, lest it should relight the torch of discord. The session terminated on the 19th of May.



REMONSTRANCE OF BECKFORD TO THE KING.

The answer which the king had given to the good citizens of London at the presentation of their recent memorial had given them great umbrage, and on the 23rd of May, the lord mayor and some aldermen, with a numerous train, went again to St. James's with another petition, complaining of this answer. The address stated that it was, as well as the general acts of government, "against the clearest principles of the constitution, and the result of insidious attempts made by evil counsellors, to perplex, confound and shake the rights of the people." It concluded with a renewed demand for the dissolution of parliament, and the removal of the present ministers. The king replied that it was his duty to express dissatisfaction at their last address, and that his sentiments on the subject were still the same. It was anticipated that the deputation would not be very graciously received, and that the king would not retract his former sentiments. Hence a remonstrance had been prepared in the shape of a reply, and to the astonishment of the court, Beckford, instead of retiring with the usual etiquette from the royal presence, approached the throne, and thus addressed the king: "Most gracious sovereign, will your majesty be pleased so far to condescend, as to permit the mayor of your loyal city of London to declare in your royal presence, in behalf of his fellow-citizens, how much the bare apprehension of your majesty's displeasure would at all times affect their minds. The declaration of that displeasure has already filled them with inexpressible anxiety and with the deepest affliction. Permit me to assure your majesty, that your majesty has not in all your dominions any subjects more faithful, more dutiful, or more ready to sacrifice their lives and fortunes in the maintenance of the true honour and dignity of your crown. We do therefore, with the greatest humility and submission, most earnestly supplicate your majesty that you will not dismiss us from your presence, without expressing a more favourable opinion of your faithful citizens, and without some comfort, or at least some prospect of redress." Had the remonstrance stopped here, Beckford might have obtained the smiles of the king; but he continued: "Permit me, sire, to observe, that whoever has already dared, or shall hereafter endeavour by false insinuations and suggestions to alienate your majesty's affections from your loyal subjects in general, and from the city of London in particular, is an enemy to your majesty's person and family; a violator of the public peace, and a betrayer of our happy constitution, as it was established at the glorious Revolution." Beckford prayed for a reply, but none being given, the deputation withdrew. The king appears, indeed, to have been too angry to reply with courtesy, for he immediately issued orders, through the medium of the lord chamberlain, that lord mayors should in future confine themselves to delivering their papers, and not presume to make speeches. But if Beckford did not please the king, he gained great credit with the people for his conduct. The Earl of Chatham warmly applauded him for asserting the rights of the city with weight and spirit. On the other hand, the king increased his unpopularity by his conduct towards the deputation. The common council were so incensed, that they demurred about voting an address of congratulation on the birth of the Princess Elizabeth, which happened about this time. Wilkes in particular, who was made an alderman even while in the King's Bench, and who now wore the civic gown, opposed such an address, and when the good feelings of the citizens prevailed over their anger, and they voted an address, he did what he could to render it unpopular. The address, however, was presented in the usual form, and his majesty observed in reply, "that the city of London, entertaining such loyal sentiments, might always feel assured of his protection." A few days after this Beckford died, and the city voted that he should be honoured with a statue in Guildhall, and that the speech he had delivered to the king should be engraved on the pedestal. His death was considered a serious blow to the opposition, as no one could be found possessing the weight which he derived from his wealth and munificence, or who could supply his ardour and fearlessness.



PROSECUTION OF WOODFALL AND ALMON.

Almost every act which the government now committed tended only to excite the public clamour and indignation. During this summer it involved itself in new troubles, and exposed itself to fiercer attacks, by prosecuting the printers and publishers of Junius's Letters. In the month of June Woodfall was tried for printing in his newspaper, the "Public Advertiser," one of these letters, which was addressed to his majesty, and was considered a scandalous libel; and Almon was tried for selling a re-publication of it in the "London Museum." Almon was found guilty of publishing, and was sentenced to pay a fine of ten marks, and find security for his good behaviour for two years. Wood-fall was found "guilty of printing and publishing only" and in his case, the defendant moved to stay the entering of judgment on the verdict, while the attorney-general moved for a rule on the defendant, to show cause why the verdict should not be entered according to the legal import of the words. The attorney-general's motion was attended to first; and when the matter came to be argued in the court of King's Bench, Lord Mansfield, before whom both cases had been tried, went regularly through the whole evidence, as well as his own charge to the jury. After recapitulating the defence on the trial, his lordship remarked: "I directed the jury, that if they believed the innuendoes, as to persons and things, to have been properly filled up in the information, and to be the true meaning of the paper, and if they gave credit to the witnesses, they must find the defendant guilty. If the jury were obliged to determine whether the paper was in law a libel or not, or to judge whether it was criminal, or to what degree; or if they were to require proofs of a criminal intention—then this direction was wrong. I told them, as I have always told them before, that whether a libel or not, was a mere question of law arising out of the record, and that all the epithets inserted in the information were formal inferences of law. A general verdict of the jury finds only what the law implies from the fact, for that is scarcely possible to be produced: the law implies from the act of publication, a criminal intent." After some further remarks of minor importance his lordship continued: "The motion of the attorney-general divides itself into two parts; first, to fill up the finding of the jury with the usual words of reference, so as to connect the verdict with the information: the omission of these words, we are of opinion, is a technical mistake of the clerk, and may be now supplied. The second head of the argument is to omit the word 'only' in the entry of the verdict: this we are all of opinion cannot be done. The word 'only' must stand in the verdict; if this word was omitted, the verdict would then be, 'guilty of printing and publishing,' which is a general verdict of guilty; for there is no other charge in the information but printing and publishing, and that alone the jury had to inquire. We are all of opinion, that my direction to the jury is right and according to law; the positions contained in it never were doubted; it never has been, nor is it now complained of in this court. There clearly can be no judgment of acquittal, because the fact found by the jury is the only question they had to try; the single doubt that remains, is concerning the meaning of the word 'only.'" The court considering that the word "only" had been used in an ambiguous sense, ordered Woodfall a new trial on that ground; but when it came on, the attorney-general remarked that he had not the original newspaper by which he could prove the publication Thus terminated the second trial: the want of this was fatal to the cause.



DISPUTES RESPECTING FALKLAND ISLANDS.

During the summer and autumn of the present year the attention of government was absorbed by a subject, which at one time threatened a new war with France and Spain—this was the affair of the Falkland Islands.

The Falkland Islands are situate in the Southern Atlantic Ocean, off the extremity of the South American continent, and the eastern entrance to the Straits of Magellan. They consist of two larger islands called East and West Falkland, and a great number of isles and islets. By right, they certainly belonged to England. The discovery of them was made by Captain Hawkins in the reign of Elizabeth, who called them "Hawkins' Maiden Islands," and they were afterwards visited by Strong in 1689, who gave them their present name. Subsequently they were visited by the French, who in 1764 formed a settlement at Berkeley Sound, an excellent harbour on West Falkland. In the next year, Commodore Byron formed a counter settlement at Port Egmont on East Falkland. The Spaniards, who had neglected these islands and their resources, now took the alarm, and demanded their evacuation both from France and England, as territories belonging to them both by right of papal bulls, and degrees of latitude and longitude. The French abandoned their settlement, but the English refused to accede to the demand. Spain, dreading the power of England, was for the time compelled to give up the claim; but at length, in 1769, the domestic distractions of Great Britain, her ready acquiescence in the transfer of Corsica to France, and the encouragement of the French minister Choiseul, emboldened the Spanish court to revive its pretensions to these islands. An armament, consisting of several ships of war, provided with apparatus for a siege, sailed from Buenos Ayres, and in the month of June suddenly appeared off Port Egmont. The British commandant, Captain Farmer, knowing that the place could not sustain a siege, after a few shots, submitted to terms of capitulation. Contrary to all the rules of war, however, the Spanish commodore, in order to prevent the intelligence from arriving in England on an early day, or from being first related by English lips, enjoined Captain Farmer not to sail without his permission, and to ensure compliance, he even unshipped the rudder of his vessel, and kept it on shore for three weeks. This was an insult to the British flag not to be endured. As soon as the proceedings were known in England, all ranks were inflamed with resentment, and eagerly desired that the national honour, thus grossly violated should be avenged. Lord North prepared for the worst, by putting ships in commission ready for war. It was thought expedient, however, to avert war, if possible, by negociations, and Spain was ultimately induced to disavow the enterprise of the governor of Buenos Ayres, and to restore the island. At the same time it was either stipulated or understood, that the settlement should at a future period be abandoned by the English: an arrangement which, as will be seen, formed a subject of complaint in parliament against the ministry.



AFFAIRS OF AMERICA.

When the news arrived of the repeal of the taxes by the British parliament, the people of Boston were by no means thankful for that act. The retention of the duty on tea, it was said, did away with all its merits, as it proved the unalterable resolution of asserting the disputed right. As, however, they could not hope to keep up the whole of the non-importation agreement, it was resolved, in a meeting of merchants, to import every thing but tea. This resolve was also entered into by the Philadelphian merchants, and great efforts were made by the leaders of the movement, to induce the people to adhere strictly to this agreement, until the tea duty should be repealed. But most of the provinces were not desirous of persevering in the quarrel, and consequently renewed their commercial intercourse with the mother country: orders came over to England, indeed, to such an extent, that our exports to the colonies in this and the following year exceeded in amount what they had ever been before. Still the progress of a revolution was not impeded. There were many zealots in America, who could not rest satisfied while a connexion subsisted between England and her colonies, and who were still busied in sowing the seeds of discontent. Some such zealots existed in every colony, but it was in New England and in Virginia that that they were chiefly to be found. In the great southern province they were headed by Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson, and by their means the popular party in Virginia were led to deplore the massacre at Boston, and to uphold that city as a new Sparta and the seat of liberty. The assembly of Virginia, in a petition or remonstrance to his majesty, ventured to express their strong dissatisfaction at Lord North's imperfect Repeal Act, and their deep affliction at seeing that the pretension of the mother country to the right of taxing the colonies was persevered in by the retention of duty upon tea. They also criticised the conduct of Lord Bottetourt, their governor, and represented that no alliance was to be placed upon the good-will or moderation of those who managed the affairs of the mother country. All the houses of assembly, now re-opened, were, in truth, scarcely less difficult to manage than they had been the year before, and in almost every instance they were prorogued by the governors. In the assembly of Massachusets, especially, there were great commotions, arising partly from communications received from England, which represented that the state and conduct of the colony was likely to be submitted to the consideration of parliament in the present session, and partly from the dismissal of the provincial forces from Castle William, and the establishment of the royal troops in that fortress. It was suspected that measures were in train to reduce the province to a state of utter dependence on Great Britain, and they proceeded to prepare instructions for their agent in London, in order to prevent the blow. But before they proceeded to business the house made another attempt to obtain a removal of the seat of government to Boston; and having failed in this, they made a strong protest against their conduct being drawn into a precedent. Soon after this Mr. Hutchinson was appointed governor of the province; but the subject of the assembly's removal afforded matter of dispute in the remonstrances of the house at the opening of every session.



MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

The king opened parliament on the 13th of November. The prominent part of his speech related to the Falkland Islands, a question that was still in abeyance. His majesty informed the lords and commons, that by an act of the governor of Buenos Ayres, in seizing one of his possessions by force, the honour of the crown and the rights of the people were deeply affected; and he called on them for advice and assistance. The addresses of both houses approved of the steps taken by his majesty, and assured him of their effectual support: to this end, supplies for the augmentation of the army and navy were cheerfully voted,—and in order to defray any extraordinary expenses, the land-tax was increased from three to four shillings in the pound.



DEBATE CONCERNING THE FALKLAND ISLANDS.

In the debate on the address, Lord North had said, that as the Spanish ambassador had thrown the responsibility upon the Governor of Buenos Ayres, it was proper that his Spanish majesty should be allowed time to disavow these proceedings. He had also endeavoured to show that the Falkland Islands were of little value to anybody, and not of sufficient importance to justify a war if it could be avoided. These sentiments ill accorded with the views of some in the lower house, in which they were uttered, and several, as Dowdeswell, Barre, Burke, Sir William Meredith, and Sir Charles Saunders, blamed the minister for putting forward the Governor of Buenos Ayres, instead of complaining of his master, the King of Spain; who must, they contended, have previously authorised his expedition against Port Egmont. Similar opinions appear to have been entertained in the house of lords, although the address passed there without any show of dissatisfaction. On the 20th of November, however, the Duke of Richmond gave notice that he would make a motion on the 22nd, on which day, therefore, the house was summoned. That day arrived, Richmond moved for an address, praying that the king would order that all papers received by the ministry between the 12th of September, 1769, and the 12th of September, 1770, touching hostilities commenced, or designed to be commenced, by the crown of Spain, or any of his officers, should be laid before parliament. In urging this demand, the duke said, that the affairs of the Falkland Islands was only one among many acts of aggression, and he asserted that while we were in want of seamen, three thousand, captured in trading ships by the Guarda-Costas, under pretence of smuggling, were rotting in Spanish prisons, or pining away in hopeless slavery in South America. The motion was opposed by Lords Weymouth and Hillsborough, who contended that the production of the papers called for, would embarrass a negociations now in good train that the Spanish government was entitled to respect and delicate management; and that the ministers were not wanting either in vigilance or vigour. The Duke of Richmond was supported by the Earl of Chatham, who, in a long and eloquent speech, showed the necessity of firmness on the part of the British cabinet;—accused the Spaniards of want of faith, and of being as mean and crafty as they are proud and insolent; and predicted that if ministers patched up an accommodation for the present, they would still have a Spanish war in six months. He concluded by charging the ministers with having destroyed all content and unanimity at home by a series of oppressive and unconstitutional measures; and with having delivered up the nation, defenceless, to a foreign enemy. He added this warning:—"Let me warn them of their danger. If they are forced into a war, they stand it at the hazard of their heads; if, by an ignominious compromise, they should stain the honour of the crown, or sacrifice the rights of the people, let them look to the consequences, and consider whether they will be able to walk the streets in safety."—The Duke of Manchester, the Marquess of Rockingham, the Earl of Shelburne, and Lord Lyttleton also supported the Duke of Richmond's motion, but it was nevertheless negatived by a large majority. On the same day, also, a similar motion was made and negatived in the house of commons; moreover, a few days later the Earl of Chatham moved that Captain Hunt, who had driven off a Spanish schooner from Port Egmont, before the armament arrived, should be ordered to attend the house; and when this was negatived, he moved an address to his majesty, praying that the house might be acquainted at what time reparation was first demanded from Spain, which likewise received a negation.



PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS OF THE LAW OF LIBEL.

The sentiments promulgated by Lord Mansfield on the law of libel, in the case of Woodfall, had created much discussion among the legal profession, and had met with much obloquy among the people. They were represented as an attempt to infringe the rights and powers of juries, and to reduce their verdicts to a mere echo of the opinions of judges, inasmuch as they were merely to inquire into the fact of printing and publishing, and not allowed to judge whether the matter in question was a libel or not On the 28th of November, Lord Chatham denounced this mode of directing juries from the bench, but Lord Mansfield justified it, and laid it down as an axiom, "that a libel, or not a libel, was a matter of law to be decided by the bench, and the question to be left to the jury was only the fact of printing and publishing." Mansfield demanded a call of the house for the 10th of December, and when that day arrived, he laid on the table a paper, drawn up with great care and precision, containing the unanimous opinion of the court of king's bench in Woodfall's case, in order that their lordships might, read or copy it as they pleased. Lord Camden inquired whether this paper was intended to be entered on the journals, and submitted to debate. Mansfield replied it was merely intended for the information of members, and he then suddenly moved an adjournment and quitted the house. On the next day, Camden considering the paper as a challenge to himself, endeavoured to provoke a discussion, by addressing six queries to the chief-justice, but Lord Mansfield declared that he would not answer interrogations, and the matter dropped.

In the house of commons, the power of filing ex-officio informations by the attorney-general in cases like Almon's, elicited the praises of Burke, on Junius as a writer, in these terms:—"How comes this Junius to have broken through the cobwebs of the law, and to have ranged uncontrolled, unpunished through the land? The myrmidons of the court have been long, and are still, pursuing him in vain. They will not spend their time upon me, or upon you, when the mighty boar of the forest, that has broke through all their toils, is before them. But what will all their efforts avail? No sooner has he wounded one than he strikes down another dead at his feet. For my own part, when I saw his attack upon the king, I own my blood ran cold. Not that he has not asserted many bold truths: yes, sir, there are in that composition many bold truths, by which a wise prince might profit. It was the rancour and venom with which I was struck. But while I expected from this daring flight his final ruin and fall, behold him rising still higher, and coming down souse upon both houses of parliament;—not content with carrying away our royal eagle in his pounces, and dashing him against a rock, he has laid you prostrate, and kings, lords, and commons, thus become but the sport of his fury." Soon after this Sergeant Glynn moved for a committee to inquire "into the constitutional power and duty of juries." His motion was opposed by Fox, and supported by Dunning, Wedderbume, Burke, and others. Fox opposed it because it was said that "the people complained of the perversion of law," and he laid himself open to the following severe remarks from the lips of Burke:—"That there should be found, he said, gentlemen who would annihilate the people, and acknowledge no other voice than that of this house, is to me, not at all surprising, because the conduct of the most violent sticklers for this doctrine has not deserved much applause or favour from them; but that they should have renounced reason and common sense so far as to maintain that the majority of this assembly is the only organ by which their sentiments can be expressed, is, to me, truly surprising. For where, in the name of wonder, should the house acquire the necessary knowledge or intelligence? Is it by turning these musty old volumes, or by rummaging these gaudy boxes which lie on your table? No! they contain none of these mysteries. How then are they to be explored? Is there any virtue or inspiration in these benches or cushions, by which they are to be communicated, or does the echo of these walls whisper the secret in your ears? No! but the echo of every other wall, the murmur of every stream, aye! the hoots and hisses of every street in the nation, ring it in your ears, and deafen you with their din. The people have a voice of their own, and it must, it will be, sooner or later heard: and I, as in duty bound, will always exert every nerve and every power of which I am master, to hasten the completion of so desirable an event." The motion was negatived.



QUARRELS BETWEEN THE LORDS AND COMMONS.

Ministers were still pressed by the opposition concerning the lingering negociations with Spain, and the incompleteness of their preparations for war. In the house of lords, the Duke of Manchester descanted in strong terms on the defenceless condition of Gibraltar, Minorca, and Jamaica. In the midst of his harangue Lord Gower desired that the house might be cleared of all persons except those who had a right to sit there. When motions like this, he said, were brought on by surprise, no one should be allowed to hear the debate except peers, inasmuch as in a crowded house, emissaries from the court of Spain and other powers might be present. He added that there was another reason why the house should be cleared. Persons, he said, had been admitted who took note of what was said, for he had in his pocket a paper which contained a speech recently made by a noble lord! This, he asserted, was contrary to a standing order, which standing order, No. 112, was produced and read. The Duke of Richmond and the Earl of Chatham warmly opposed such a step, but their voices were drowned by shouts of "Clear the house! Clear the house!" The Earl of Chatham, with eighteen peers, indignantly left the house, and the party who remained then insisted that all the members of the house of commons present should be turned out sans ceremonie! These members represented that they were there in the discharge of their duty, for that they were there attending with a bill. The bill was demanded, and they had no sooner delivered it, than they were hooted out of the house. A strong protest was made against these proceedings by members of both houses;—and on the same day, Mr. George Onslow moved in the lower house that it should be cleared—"peers and all." This motion was made merely from pique at the treatment of the commons by the lords, and not with a view of encouraging the notion that debates ought to be open, reported, and published. A better motion was made by Mr. Dunning, who moved for a committee "to inspect the journals of the house of lords of that day, as to what proceedings and resolutions were therein, with relation to the not permitting any persons to be present in any part of the said house during the sitting thereof." This motion was negatived; but no vote passed either in the house of lords or that of the commons could remove the stain which the ministers had brought upon their characters by these tumultuous proceedings, or allay the desire which the people entertained for the publication of parliamentary debates; and the opposition did what they could to render their conduct more odious than it really was The Earl of Chatham recommended that search should be made by the commons in the journals, and that a conference should be demanded with the lords. Acting upon this advice, Lord George Germaine moved in the house of commons for such a conference, but though he was ably supported by Lord George Cavendish, Burke, Dunning, and Barre, all of whom dealt in humour as well as argument, the motion was negatived. Lord Germaine then moved that the speaker should write to such eldest sons and heirs apparent of peers, king's sergeants, and masters in chancery, as were members, and to the attorney and solicitor-general, and request them to be in their places every day at two o'clock, to assist in carrying bills to the house of lords; but the only result of this motion was a duel between the mover and Governor Johnstone, in Hyde-park, in consequence of some remarks which the latter had made in the course of the debate.



CONVENTION WITH SPAIN.

As the sincerity of the Spanish government was doubted by the ministry before Christmas, it was deemed advisable to adjourn parliament to the latter end of January, in order to afford time for the development of circumstances, and to enable the cabinet to decide upon peace or war. Ministers seem, indeed, to have learned of late that the plan of paying deference to the Spanish court was not founded in wisdom, and they changed their policy. On the 21st of December a messenger was despatched to Spain to recall our ambassador, and to intimate to the English merchants and commanders of ships, that it would probably be expedient for them to leave that country. This conduct alarmed the Spanish court, but it is probable that the King of Spain would have decided upon war, had not his views been disappointed in another quarter. He had invited the King of France to co-operate with him, and the Duc de Choiseul, his minister, was favourable to the cause of Spain, but during the month of December Choiseul was disgraced and exiled, through the influence of Madame du Barry, the king's mistress, and he was succeeded by the Duke d'Aiguillon, who advocated peace. This had the effect of bringing the negociations to a close: Louis XV. wrote to the Spanish monarch with his own hand, that he would not have war, and instructions were immediately sent to London to Prince Masserano, the Spanish envoy, to accept the propositions offered by the British Cabinet.



CHANGES IN THE MINISTRY.

During the Christmas recess, ministers were employed in gaining converts from the ranks of the opposition, and in making arrangements to complete and strengthen the administration. Lord Weymouth having resigned the seals of secretary of state, they were given to Lord Sandwich, who was succeeded in his office of postmaster-general by the Honourable H. F. Thynne. Mr. Wedderburne, the pet of Chatham and the city, abandoned his friends, and became solicitor-general to the queen; while Thurlow was made attorney-general in the place of Mr. de Grey, who was created chief-justice of the common pleas. A chancellor was now also found in the person of the Hon. Henry Bathurst, who took the title of Baron Apsley. Lord Sandwich held the seals of secretary of state but for a few days. Having expressed a wish to be transferred to the admiralty, he was placed at the head of that board, instead of Sir Edward Hawke, and Lord Halifax succeeded him as secretary of state, giving up the privy seal to the Earl of Suffolk; Lord Rochford was removed to the southern department. Mr. Grenville had recently paid the great debt of nature, or he would have probably again come into office, but several of his friends were introduced into the ministry, by which it gained a considerable accession of talent.



CHAPTER IV.

{GEORGE III. 1771-1773}

Re-opening of Parliament..... Proceedings against Shoreham..... Resolutions respecting the Publication of Debates..... Committal of the Lord Mayor and Alderman Oliver to the Tower..... Contest between the City and Legislature..... The question of the Middlesex Election..... The question of the Dissolution of Parliament..... The Session closed..... Release of the Lord Mayor and Alderman Oliver..... Education of the Prince of Wales..... City Petition to the King..... Disputes in the City..... Meeting of Parliament..... Debates on Subscription to the Thirty- nine Articles..... ecclesiastical Nullum Tempus Bill..... The case of Dr. Nowell..... Test and Corporation Acts..... The Royal Marriage Act..... East India Affairs..... The Session closed..... Fate of the Queen of Denmark..... Death of the Princess Dowager of Wales..... Revolution in Sweden..... Partition of Poland..... Investigation of the Middlesex Election..... Changes in the Ministry..... The Meeting of Parliament..... East India Affairs.

{A.D. 1771}



RE-OPENING OF PARLIAMENT.

When the commons assembled on the 22nd of January, Lord North announced the happy termination of the dispute with Spain, and the intention of government to lay the convention which had just been signed before parliament. Lord Rochford imparted similar information to the lords: in both houses the question gave rise to warm discussion. In the lords the Duke of Manchester moved for all the information received by government touching the designs of Spain upon Falkland Island, and for all the papers passed during the negociations. Rochford moved an amendment, limiting the inquiry to the subject of Falkland Island, and Lord Sandwich moved another amendment, which the Duke of Richmond said would so narrow the motion as to deprive the house of all necessary information. These amendments were withdrawn, and the original motion of the Duke of Manchester agreed to; but even this did not satisfy the opposition. The Duke of Richmond next moved, in order to recommend this ignominious affair to further censure, that all the memorials or other papers which had passed between his majesty's ministers and the ministers of the King of France, relating to the seizure of Falkland Island by the Spaniards, should be laid before the house. Rochford said that he knew of no such papers, which assertion was questioned by the Earl of Chatham, inasmuch as the interference of France in the matter was a fact that could not be denied. The house, he said, ought never to take the word of a minister, and that the refusal of this motion showed that some transaction with France had passed, though perhaps not papers or memorials. The motion was negatived; but the question gave rise to still further discussion in both houses, of which little is known; as on the great field-day in the lords, all strangers were rigidly excluded. The Earl of Chatham moved on that day, that the following two questions should be referred to the judges:—1. Whether, in law, the imperial crown of the realm can hold any territories or possessions otherwise than in sovereignty? 2. Whether the declaration or instrument for restitution of Port Egmont, to be made by the Catholic king to his majesty, under a reservation of a disputed right of sovereignty, expressed in the very declaration or instrument stipulating such restitution, can be accepted or carried into execution, without derogating from the maxim of law touching the inherent and essential dignity of the crown of Great Britain? This motion was negatived; and subsequently the Duke of Newcastle moved for an address to the king, in approbation of the convention, and of the wise and moderate measures which had been employed to procure it; which was carried by a large majority. So far as parliament was concerned, the question of Falkland Island was, by this motion, set at rest; but out of doors it long continued to be a matter of dispute. One party maintained that the possession of Port Egmont was of the utmost importance to England, and that by the secret article, which it was said existed in the convention, implying that after all we were to give it up, the national honour had been meanly sacrificed. The caustic Junius and other writers took this side of the question. Another party, however, at the head of whom Dr. Johnson may be reckoned, endeavoured to demonstrate that the whole group was worth little or nothing, and that it would have been absurd to go to war about them. Both parties adopted exaggerated language to prove their propositions; but whether they were of any real value or not, it behoved England, according to state maxims, to resent the conduct of Spain, in treacherously falling upon her colony at Port Egmont in times of peace. No argument, indeed, could justify such an invasion of the dignity of England's crown and the rights of her subjects. But one thing seems certain arose from this affair; namely, that if the interests of the country were sacrificed by this convention, private individuals, at least, reaped great advantage therefrom. The sudden signing of it, when war was well nigh pronounced by the prime minister, gave rise to stockjobbing, and in the course of a few days large fortunes were made in Change-alley. This formed one of the most weighty charges brought by the opposition against ministers in the course of the debate. Colonel Barre, indeed, directly accused them of being implicated in these unworthy transactions. "A Frenchman," said he, "being in your secrets, has made nearly half a million of money by jobbing in your funds; and some of the highest among yourselves have been deeply concerned in the same scandalous traffic." In the course of the session this led to a bill for the more effectual prevention of stock-jobbing; but though it passed the commons, it does not appear to have obtained the notice of the lords.



PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SHOREHAM.

In consequence of a petition lodged against one Hugh Roberts, the returning officer of Shoreham, the public were at this time startled by strange disclosures of corruption in the elections for that borough. A select committee was appointed, according to Grenville's act, to determine a contested election, in which a candidate who had only thirty-seven votes had been declared duly elected, to the prejudice of a rival who had more than double that number. It appeared from the inquiry that the majority of the freeholders of this insignificant borough had formed themselves into an association, called "The Christian Club," for the ostensible purpose of promoting the cause of piety and charity. This, however, only served as a cloak for venality and corruption. These associated "Christians," sometimes performed a charitable act, in order to accredit their professions, but the bulk of the money which they received from their representatives found its way into their own pockets;—and this was no trifling sum. The borough was offered at elections to the highest bidder, and he who offered most was successful. In order to escape detection, the members of this club were bound to secrecy by solemn oaths, and by bonds with large penalties attached to them; and negociations with candidates were carried on by means of a select committee, who, under pretence of scruples of conscience, never voted themselves, but having sold the borough and received the money, directed the suffrages of the rest, and afterwards shared in the booty. Their hypocrisy, however, was brought to light by one in their own camp. At this election five candidates had offered themselves, and the secret committee were sent to treat with the bidders. The best offers were made by General Smith and Mr. Rumbold: the former offering L3000 in cash, and to build six hundred tons of shipping at Shoreham; and the latter offering L35 a man to all the freemen. The secret committee preferred Rumbold, but Roberts, the returning officer, preferred the General, and knowing that a large sum of money had been distributed among eighty-one of the majority, he considered them disqualified, and omitted them in his return. This formed the subject of the petition, and the facts being proved, a bill was brought in and carried, by which eighty-one freemen of Shoreham were disfranchised; and the Shoreham franchise was extended to all the freeholders of the neighbouring district, called the Rape of Bramber, who occupied tenements of the annual value of forty shillings. At the same time Roberts was reprimanded at the bar of the house by the speaker, for his assumption of illegal authority.



RESOLUTIONS RESPECTING THE PUBLICATION OF DEBATES.

Up to this period it had been held that to publish the debates of either house of parliament was a breach of privilege. The editors of periodicals had, indeed, endeavoured to evade the prohibition by publishing mutilated and occasionally invented speeches of honourable and noble lords, under fictitious names; but the people did not even obtain this doubtful information till after the discussion was over, and the matter in debate settled. The public, however, were now becoming more enlightened, and withal more curious, and these garbled and stale speeches did not satisfy them;—they longed for a full reporting newspaper, and the printers were encouraged by the general feeling to venture upon giving the proceedings in parliament from week to week, or from day to day, as they occurred. They were the more induced to take this step because the extent of the power of parliament to enforce this question of privilege had never been accurately defined. The letters of Junius, also, had a great effect in confirming them in their resolution: accordingly, during the Middlesex elections and the debates on the affairs of the Falkland Islands, the public were gratified with certain and immediate intelligence of what their representatives were doing. But this was not likely to be allowed by parliament without a struggle. The members of both houses had been strenuous in their endeavours to shut their doors in the face of the nation—to choke all attempts at publicity, and to seclude themselves as rigorously as a jury, and therefore the proprietors of these newly established papers, must have expected, sooner or later, to be disturbed in their occupations. On the 5th of February their anticipations were realized. Colonel George Onslow, now one of the lords of the treasury, denounced the insolence and wickedness of these proceedings, as tending to the destruction of all things to be venerated in our constitution; and, on the 26th of the same month, he moved:—"That it is an indignity to, and a breach of privilege of this house, for any person to presume to give in written or printed newspapers any account or minutes of debate, or other proceedings of this house, or any part thereof; and that upon discovery of the authors, printers, or publishers of any such written or printed newspaper, this house will proceed against the offenders with the utmost severity." The motion was opposed by Alderman Trecothick, who wished every man to hear what passed in the house; and by Burke, who in the course of his speech declared, that so long as an interest existed out of doors to examine the proceedings of parliament, so long would men be found to do what these printers had already done. It was also argued that the privilege enjoyed by constituents of knowing what is said and done by their representatives, is founded on the true principles of the constitution, and that falsehood and misrepresentation ought to be punished in a different manner from that proposed, inasmuch as it went to make the house of commons a secret tribunal. Onslow's motion, however, was carried, and two of the printers, Thompson and Wheble, were ordered to attend at the bar of the house. This order was not noticed, and the sergeant-at-arms was directed to take them into custody: they were not to be found; and another printer, Evans, who was ordered on the 1st of March to attend the house, treated the order with the same contempt. Colonel Onslow then moved for an address to the king, to issue a proclamation, offering a reward of fifty pounds for their apprehension, which was agreed to; and subsequently he denounced six more printers as guilty of the same enormities. Wheble was at length taken by another printer, and carried before Alderman Wilkes, who discharged him from custody, and made him enter into his own recognisance to prosecute the man who captured him at the Old Bailey sessions for false imprisonment or an illegal arrest. On the same day Thompson was also carried before Alderman Oliver, who followed the example of Wilkes, and discharged him. Four printers, out of the six last denounced by Onslow, attended at the bar of the house; a fifth [Woodfall] was already in custody in Newgate, by order of the house of lords, and the sixth, named Millar, refused to obey the summons. A messenger was sent to apprehend him, but Millar had a constable in readiness, and he gave the messenger into custody, and he was carried to Guildhall to answer for the assault. Wilkes, the sitting alderman, said he had finished the business of the day, and would not enter upon the case, and the messenger was then conveyed to the mansion-house. The lord mayor being indisposed, he was kept there for three hours, but in the evening, being attended by Wilkes and Oliver, he admitted the parties: the deputy sergeant-at-arms being also present. The printer having stated his complaint, the messenger was asked by what authority he had presumed to commit the assault? He produced his warrant, and the sergeant-at-arms then intimated that he was there by the speaker's order, not only to release the messenger, but to take Millar into custody. The magistrates, however, represented that by the city charters no caption could be made, east of Temple-bar, without the authority of the lord mayor; and while they released Millar, they would have committed the messenger to prison, had not bail been given for his appearance to answer for the alleged assault.



COMMITTAL OF THE LORD MAYOR AND ALDERMAN OLIVER TO THE TOWER.

The above transactions were reported to the commons by the sergeant-at-arms, and orders were issued for the lord mayor to attend in his place, and his clerk to bring up the mansion-house minute-book, in which the proceedings had been entered. Alderman Oliver was likewise ordered to attend in his place, while Wilkes was directed to appear at the bar of the house. The two members obeyed the summons, and boldly justified their conduct; but though they were ably supported by many members in the house, and though the public emphatically displayed their approbation of their conduct, they were committed to the Tower. As for Wilkes he defied the government, refusing to attend unless in his seat as member for Middlesex. Three several times he was summoned to attend, but he would not listen to it under any other conditions, and nothing remained but compulsion, which the ministers were afraid of using. His majesty, indeed, is expressly said to have asserted, that he would have nothing to do with him, and he was left to act with impunity. This confessed weakness brought the cabinet into utter contempt, for though ministers resorted to the trick of adjournment with regard to his non-appearance, all men saw that it was fear alone which prevented them from taking him into custody. And that they had reason to fear there can be no question, for had any attempt been made to compel his appearance, it would have revived all the uproar of the election questions, and brought him forward with tenfold powers of mischief, as the champion of the mob: and, even as it was, ministers had brought themselves, by the proceedings against the printers, into no very enviable position. Riots and tumults in the avenues of the house were the order of the day, and the life of Lord North was on one occasion brought into imminent danger. On the day that the lord mayor was committed, indeed, the tumult was so violent that the house was obliged to stop business for some hours, and it was in vain that magistrates and constables endeavoured to restore peace: it was only through the speeches of some of the more popular members, who left the house on purpose to address them, that the minds of the chafed multitude became tranquil. It was thought that Lord North would now resign, and a report had been made to that effect, but he declared that though he wished for retirement, he entertained no such design; that nothing but the king or the mob, who were near destroying him, could remove him; and that he was determined to weather out the storm. He ungraciously charged the minority with hiring the mob to destroy him; upon which Burke's brother, William, indignantly exclaimed, —"It is a falsehood, a most egregious falsehood; the minority are to a man persons of honour, who scorn such a resource. Such a charge could only emanate from a man hackneyed in indirect measures."



CONTEST BETWEEN THE CITY AND LEGISLATURE.

Another occasion of contest between the city and legislature arose from the introduction of a bill for enclosing and embanking a part of the river Thames, adjoining to Durham-yard. The city considering that their rights were about to be invaded were heard by counsel. They produced a grant by Henry VII. of all the soil and bed of the river, from Staines bridge to a spot near the Medway, and likewise a lease granted by them of a nook of the river near Vauxhall, for which they had received rent upwards of sixty years. On the part of the legislature, a charter of Charles II. was produced, in which he had reserved the bed of the river, by the acceptation of which, it was argued, that the city had forfeited that granted by Henry VII. It was also contended that the charter of Henry only extended to that part of the river which was within the city, and the lease at Vauxhall was, therefore, an encroachment. These arguments prevailed, the bill was passed, and a pile of buildings, called the Adelphi, was erected on the site, and disposed of by lottery. The disposal of them in this manner was to eke out the ways and means, and this mode of procuring money called forth the indignant denunciations of Mr. Burke and Colonel Barre, who stigmatized it as an iniquitous project to bribe the servants of the public; a use to which lotteries had been previously applied.



THE QUESTION OF THE MIDDLESEX ELECTION.

The question of the Middlesex election was again brought forward in the lords on the 30th of April, when; the Duke of Richmond moved for expunging the resolution adopted on the subject. The Earl of Chatham delivered a long speech on that occasion, which was forthwith published in the Public Advertiser. The orator appears to have been unanswered, but the motion was negatived.



THE QUESTION OF THE DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT.

On the 1st of May, the Earl of Chatham moved for an address to the king to dissolve the present parliament at the end of the session, and to call a new one with all convenient dispatch. The speech, which he delivered in making this motion first drew a sad contrast between the state of the country at the time it was uttered, and the condition it was in only a few years before. He then descanted on the treaty of Fontainbleau; the late convention with Spain; the occurrences in St. George's Fields, which he called "murders;" on the affairs of America; and on the immense private debt contracted by the crown. "All these circumstances," he observed, "have justly alarmed the nation, and made them attentive to the operations of parliament. Hence the publication of the parliamentary debates. And where is the injury, if the members act upon honest principles? For a public assembly to be afraid of having their deliberations published is monstrous, and speaks for itself. No mortal can construe such a procedure to their advantage; and the practice of locking the doors is sufficient to open the eyes of the blind;—they must see that all is not well within. Not satisfied, however, with shutting the doors, the commons would overturn the liberty of the press. The printers had spirit and resisted. The irritated commons exalted their privilege above the laws of the land, and their servants acted illegally in the execution of their illegal orders. The magistrates of London undertook the cause of the printers, and the protection of the laws and of the city's franchises. The commons still proceeded with the same outrageous violence;—they called upon the magistrates to justify their conduct, and would not suffer them to be heard by counsel. These men, who had allowed the prostituted electors of Shoreham counsel to defend a bargain to sell their borough by auction, would not grant the same indulgence to the lord mayor of London, pleading for the laws of England, and the conscientious discharge of his duty. Accordingly they committed him to the tower for not violating his oath. The most sacred obligation of morality and religion they voted criminal, when it happened to stand in competition with their assumed privileges. Their next step was the act of a mob, and not of a parliament; I mean the expunging of the recognisance entered at Guildhall. We have heard of such violence committed by the French King; and it seems much better calculated for the latitude of Paris than of London. The people of this kingdom will never submit to such barefaced tyranny. They must see that it is time to rouse, when their own creatures dare to assume a power of stopping prosecutions by their vote, and consequently of resolving the law of the land into their will and pleasure. The imprudence, and indeed the absolute madness of these measures, demonstrates not the result of that assembly's calm, unbiassed deliberations, but the dictates of weak uninformed ministers, influenced by those who mislead their sovereign." Chatham then told the ministers that it was through their misconduct that Wilkes had become a person of consequence in the state, and twitted them with acknowledging him to be their lord and master, since while they had punished the chief magistrate of the city, they were compelled to allow him to act with impunity. On all these grounds, he said, it was that he moved for an address to the throne for the dissolution of parliament; a step which he considered might have the effect of restoring good humour and tranquillity on the one hand, and good government on the other. At the same time he expressed his doubts whether this would prove any thing more than a temporary and partial remedy, as the influence of the crown had become so enormous, that some stronger bulwark ought to be erected for the defence of the constitution. He concluded by stating that the act for septennial parliaments must be repealed, and by proclaiming himself a convert to triennial parliaments. The motion was negatived by seventy-two against twenty-three. In the house of commons, Alderman Sawbridge made a direct motion for shortening the duration of parliaments; a motion which, in spite of the large majorities against him, he renewed every session till his death. Out or doors, at this time, the question was very popular; the Rev. John Home, and Junius advocating it as the surest road to political perfection, and as the only means of preserving the substantial freedom of the constitution. It is probable, however, that Chatham only advocated this measure for the purpose of alarming ministers and increasing his popularity, for his views of parliamentary reform were never definite: he never had a fixed and settled purpose in the matter.