Personal and party government

Preface

TN the following pages an attempt is made to narrate -*- the struggle between the crown and the whig party from the accession of George III to the downfall of the first Kockingham administration. The tale is tangled and involved, and it has been necessary, in order to preserve the continuity of the story, to omit much of vital interest in the history of the time. Thus the highly important negotiations with France, and the Peace of Paris, are only considered in their bearing upon domestic politics; and although this limited treatment might well deserve censure in a work professing to be a general account of the period, it may possibly be excused in what claims to be no more than a study of only one aspect of the early years of the reign of George III.

It would be a mistake, however, to deny or belittle the importance of the contest between the king and the whig leaders. It was no mere selfish lust for power that impelled George III to wage war upon the men who had enslaved his grandfather, but a conscientious conviction that it was his duty, as a constitutional monarch, to rule as well as to reign. Nor were his opponents influenced by sordid and ignoble motives. Believing firmly in the principles of party government, Newcastle and his followers saw in the increase of the power of the crown a menace to

VI PREFACE

the safety of the nation and the predominance of parliament; and, though worsted in the encounter, and condemned to dwell, save for a brief and unhappy interval, in the wilderness of opposition, the ideals, for which they endured defeat, were destined ultimately to triumph. The defects of the whigs, and they were many, have not been spared by historians; but it is to their credit that in their struggle with the monarchy they were fighting not for places but for principles.

Their failure is somewhat surprising, seeing how much they had in their favour. It might have been anticipated that a youthful king, inexperienced in affairs, and too apt to disregard public opinion when it conflicted with his own will, would find himself no match for men who had grown grey in the service of his grandfather, and had accumulated a rich store of political experience. The success of the crown cannot be attributed to any one cause, and due account must be taken of the fact that an organised opposition to the administration was an irregular and unrecognised feature of the constitutional life of the period. But, when all reservations have been made, it remains true that Pitt, by refusing to throw in his lot with the whigs at the critical moment of their fortunes, did not a little to gain for the king the authority which he was so grossly to misuse. Great as were his achievements, and worthy as he is of the high place he holds in English history, Pitt failed as a domestic politician; and the early years of the reign of George III constitute the record of his failure.

PREFACE Vll

Use has been made of the valuable Newcastle, Hardwicke, and Bute papers at the British Museum ; and no student of the eighteenth century can fail to owe much to the many distinguished historians who have devoted themselves to that period. I am also deeply indebted to Dr Foakes-Jackson of Jesus college, and to Mr H. W. V. Temperley of Peterhouse, for much kind assistance. By a generous expenditure of time and trouble they were able to remove many blemishes, and suggest many improvements; and while the author is solely responsible for the many defects of his work, they have no small share in any merits which it may possess. I must also thank Dr A. W. Ward, master of Peterhouse, who was good enough to give much needed help.

D. A. W.

Contents

CHAPTEB

I. The Accession op George III

II. The Fall op Pitt

Appendix

I. William Pitt and his latest Biographer

II. The Election of a High Steward of the University of Cambridge in the year 1764 . . 284

III. Placemen and the repeal of the Stamp Act . 305

Index 308

Chapter I. The Accession Of George III

The accession of George III to the English throne on October 25th, 1760, marks the beginning of an important epoch in the constitutional and political history of this country. Having but recently attained his majority when he inherited the crown, the new prince was to reign for sixty years, frequently to the detriment of the nation whose welfare, nevertheless, he sincerely had at heart. The domestic and personal misfortunes of his later life, and the courage he displayed under the burden of adversity, gained for him the affection of his subjects, causing them to forget his faults as a ruler ; but those who knew him in his younger days regarded him with a less friendly and more critical eye. Lord Waldegrave, who had acted as his governor, formed an unfavourable opinion of his character, crediting him with obstinacy, uncharitableness, and a lack of frankness 1 ; and, unfortunately, these defects were exaggerated rather than diminished by the education he had received. For fear that he might be contaminated by the lax morality of his age, he had not been permitted to mix freely in society; and though this restriction doubtless prevented him from contracting many vicious 1 Waldegrave Memoirs, pp. 8 — 10.

habits, it seriously restricted the limits of his mental horizon. A tendency to act upon prejudices which he mistook for principles, an inability to credit his opponents with sincerity and good faith, an inveteracy of resentment, and a blind adherence to his own opinions, however little founded on reason and knowledge, were the distinguishing characteristics of George III throughout his long reign. Sincerely and unaffectedly pious, genuinely anxious for his people's welfare, he possessed many qualities admirable and attractive in a private individual; and, even as a constitutional monarch, he might have acted a useful part in the intelligent discharge of the formal duties of his office. But, unfortunately both for himself and his country, he elected to play a more ambitious role, and one for which he was intellectually unfit.

The task which he set himself to perform was no less than the restoration of the personal power of the monarchy which, since the Ee volution of 1688, had suffered a sensible declension. The great struggle in the seventeenth century between the crown and parliament for supremacy in the state, in the course of which one king had lost his life upon the scaffold, and another had been obliged to seek refuge in France, had ended in a victory for the popular assembly; and Greorge III had no wish to go back upon a settlement which had been ratified by time and acquiesced in by the majority of the nation. The prerogatives, claimed and exercised by the Stuart monarchs, had perished with them; and, after the Eevolution of 1688, it was impossible for an English sovereign to assert a supremacy over the law of the land or a right to rule independently of the will of parliament. Henceforth he was compelled to recognise that very definite limits had been placed to his authority; and that, if he was the leader of the nation, he was also, in a sense, its servant.

It would be a mistake, however, to imagine that the statesmen responsible for placing William of Orange upon the English throne intended to deprive him and his successors of all influence upon the government of the state. The political principles, which inspired the leaders of the Revolution, are embodied in the two great statutes of the period, the Bill of Rights and' the Act of Settlement, neither of which are directed towards the annihilation of the royal authority, aiming rather at the restraint of those powers which had rendered the government of the Stuarts insupportable. The law of the land was made superior to the arbitrary will of the sovereign by the abolition of the suspending and dispensing powers, and by making the tenure of the judicial office independent of the good pleasure of the crown ; whilst annual sessions of parliament were rendered indispensable by the necessity of passing the Mutiny Act every year, and by the extension of the practice of appropriation of supplies. Thus the effect of the Revolution was to institute, for the first time in English history, a limited monarchy with parliament as the supreme power ; but, restricted as the royal authority was, it still remained considerable. An immense amount of patronage was still vested in the king; his choice of ministers was unfettered by legal restrictions; he could dismiss parliament at pleasure, and could even refuse to sanction a measure approved by both houses. Possessed of such extensive powers, it is not surprising that neither William III nor Anne were cyphers in the politics of their time, and often exercised a decisive influence upon the course of national affairs.

The outcome of the constitutional struggle had been, therefore, not to destroy the royal prerogative, but to insure that it was used in accordance with the will of parliament. That body, as representative of the nation, was made

1—2 responsible for the proper use of the authority of the crown; but, unfortunately, nothing was done to equip it for the adequate performance of this onerous task. Those, who had reformed the monarchy, had omitted to reform the parliament. No steps had been taken to extend the franchise, to diminish the number of rotten boroughs, or to check the practice of bribery at elections. It was still possible for seats to be purchased in the open market, for two or three freeholders to return a representative, and for a member to accept a bribe at the hands of the government without being called to account by indignant constituents. It is true that parliament could control the king, but it is equally true that the king, if he chose to do so, could control parliament. In Cornwall, which returned more borough members than any other English county, and was notorious for electioneering corruption, the crown was possessed of considerable influence 1 ; and, in other parts of England, it was customary for certain constituencies, known as treasury boroughs, always to return the nominees of the ministry of the day. Moreover, the members of a large number of boroughs were practically appointed by private individuals or close corporations who, regarding the privilege as a species of property, were often found willing to sell their rights; and it was open to the monarch to compete with his subjects in the purchase of seats.

The defects in the electoral system were not the only means possessed by the king of influencing the body

1 According to Coxe, Lord Falmouth, at the General Election of 1741, " gained over many of the Cornish boroughs which had usually returned the members recommended by the crown," and, apparently, in 1774, a later Lord Falmouth was able to return the members of six Cornish boroughs. See Coxe's Memoirs of Sir Robert Walpole (1798), i. 684; Porritt's The Vnreformed House of Commons, i. 340.

which had undertaken to defend the national liberty. The extensive patronage, which he still retained, enabled him to reward richly those who rendered him personal service; and members of parliament who dared to frustrate the wishes of the crown, did so with the knowledge that they were probably cutting themselves off from the valuable prizes of public life. A peerage, a public office, or a rich sinecure which would confer affluence upon the happy recipient, were among the usual rewards offered to men who were willing to sacrifice their convictions to their advancement. It has been related how, in the middle of the eighteenth century, " one nobleman had eight thousand a year in sinecures, and the colonelcies of three regiments. Another, as auditor of the exchequer, inside which he never looked, had eight thousand pounds in years of peace and twenty thousand in years of war 1 ." The same tale is told by Horace Walpole who enumerates with great complacency the various patent places conferred upon him by an affectionate father, and proudly asserts that " he who holds an ancient patent place enjoys it as much by law as any gentleman holds his estate, and by more ancient tenure than most gentlemen hold theirs 2 ." When, moreover, it is remembered that the granting of offices of great profit and no obligations did not exhaust the resources of the crown, that it was still possible for valuable government contracts to be assigned as rewards for political services, and for the supporters of the ministry to be enriched at the public expense, some idea can be formed of the golden prospect which revealed itself to those who entered into

1 Trevelyan's The Early History of Charles James Fox (Silver Library edition), pp. 97, 98.

2 Walpole's Works (1798), n. 363—370. The essay is also printed in Cunningham's edition of Walpole's Letters, i.

politics, not with the idea of serving their country, but with the intention of founding a fortune 1 .

Thus, by a wise dispensation of his patronage, by influencing elections, and corrupting the chosen of the people, it was still possible for an English king, even after the Revolution settlement, to rule in apparent submission to parliament but really in accordance with his own wishes. Able to control the guardian placed over him, he could still exercise a decisive influence over the course of politics; for a subservient house of commons, bribed and cajoled into submission, would support the ministers whom the king approved, and the royal prerogative, nominally exercised under parliamentary supervision, would, in effect, be uncontrolled. Yet nothing is more certain than that, in spite of these many advantages, the English monarchy, after the death of Queen Anne, declined in prestige and influence, and by the time that G-eorge III ascended the throne had reached the nadir of its fortunes. The new ruler discovered that his patronage was dispensed by the ministers who, as his grandfather had bitterly remarked, were indeed "kings in this country," that members of

1 On his accession, George I was informed by Lord Cowper that "the parties are so near an equality and the generality of the world so much in love with the advantages a king of Great Britain has to bestow, without the least exceeding the bounds of law, that 'tis wholly in your Majesty's power by showing your favour in due time (before the elections) to one or other of them, to give which of them you please a clear majority in all succeeding parliaments," Cowper's An impartial History of parties. Thoyras Rapin in his Dissertation sur les Whigs et les Torys (1717) also comments upon the influence possessed by the crown: "Le premier abus consiste dans la trop grande influence que la cour a dans les elections des membres de la Chambre Basse, et par consequent sur les deliberations du Parlement. ...On peut juger de l'effet que produisent ces intrigues par cette seule consideration. C'est qu'ordinairement le Parlement est Whig quand le ministere est Whig, et qu'il est Tory, quand les ministres sont Torys " (pp. 156 — 158).

parliament looked to the cabinet rather than to the crown for guidance, and that what may be termed the political machinery had been captured by a few men who utilised it to maintain themselves in power and to diminish the authority of the crown.

This unanticipated development had been brought about by a strange mixture of chance and design. The death of Queen Anne without issue placed in the person of George I a foreigner upon the English throne ; and the monarchy could not but be affected by the change. Past fifty years of age when he inherited the royal dignity, unable to speak the language of his new subjects, and caring little for the land he had come to rule, George I was not likely to be an object of English loyalty; and, though the nation might acquiesce in the accession of the Hanoverian dynasty as a safeguard against Catholicism and the predominance of French influence in Europe, it was hardly likely to become enthusiastic at the spectacle of a German elector installed upon the throne of the Stuarts. The part played by George I in the government of the country, and especially in the sphere of foreign policy, has doubtless been unduly minimised, but it remains true that, unable to count upon the affection of his people, and unacquainted with the domestic politics and constitutional customs of his new dominions, he was obliged to entrust what came to be known as the management of the house of commons to his ministers who, in order that they should adequately accomplish this task, had to be allowed to dispose of the royal patronage. Thus what the king should have preserved in his own hands, if jealous of his prerogative, was delegated to his advisers, with the result that it was the ministers and not the crown who granted peerages, appointed to bishoprics, and filled up those numerous places of which the occupants had nothing to do but draw their pay; and it is hardly surprising that the house of commons in time became more intent upon pleasing the king's servants than upon pleasing the king himself.

It was a further blow to the royal influence that the new dynasty was deprived, by the circumstances attending its accession, of the power of choosing its ministers indiscriminately from either political party. Unable to confide in the tories, whom he suspected of having intrigued in the interests of the banished Stuarts, George I was obliged to place his trust in the whigs who used the royal favour to establish themselves in power and to drive their political opponents into the wilderness of opposition. His example was followed by his successor; and the whig predominance, which continued until the early years of the reign of George III, is one of the most striking and significant features of the constitutional history of the eighteenth century. It now became possible for the ministry to be composed of men holding the same political opinions, and thus possessed of the strength which comes from union; and, when it is remembered that the custom of the sovereign attending the meetings of the cabinet ceased after the death of Queen Anne, it can be seen how great was the probability of a ministry, united in opinion and secure of a majority in the house of commons, taking up an independent and even hostile attitude towards the court. Thus the banishment of the tories from political life, and the transference of the crown to a foreign house, fostered the growth of an oligarchy which was to rule England until the accession of George III. A few great nobles, the leaders of the whig party, adding to the influence they possessed as borough proprietors and great landowners the vast resources of the royal patronage, effectively controlled

THE ACCESSION OF GEOEGE III 9

parliament; and the king found himself unable to dispense with their services, not because they were approved by the country, but because of their following in the house of commons. The great "Revolution families," as they came to be called, the Russells, the Cavendishes, and the Pelhams, established themselves in power by using the influence of the crown against the crown itself ; and it was left for George II to discover that, in order to protect himself from the Jacobites, he had sold himself into slavery to the whigs. At the end of his reign he complained with some bitterness that " he had a right to choose those who were to serve him, though at present so far from an option, he was not even allowed a negative 1 ." Parliament, which in former days had resisted the crown in the name of the people, now prevailed against the king in the interests of the whig aristocracy.

Victory, however, as well as defeat is apt to be a cause of division; and those, who had succeeded in bringing the monarchy into subjection, soon fell to quarrelling amongst themselves. During the last years of Queen Anne the whigs, threatened by the tory supremacy, had presented a more or less united front to the enemy ; but no sooner had they prevailed over their opponents than divisions began to appear in their ranks. Sunderland and Townshend competed for the royal favour during the early part of George I's reign ; and though the schism was temporarily healed by Walpole's rise to power, and the deaths of his two most formidable rivals, Sunderland and Stanhope, it was soon to break out afresh. Walpole was obliged to work with colleagues who had no intention of submitting to the dictation of a single member of the cabinet, and after his resignation in 1742, it became more apparent than ever before that the whig party was split up into 1 Waldegrave Memoirs, p. 133.

rival sections, divided from each other by no question of principle but by personal predilections. While some gathered round the banner raised by the Duke of Bedford, others enlisted under the Duke of Newcastle, and the importance of a statesman was measured, not by the favour he enjoyed at court or his popularity with the country, but by the extent of his following in both houses of parliament. The importance of these divisions must not, however, be exaggerated, for though Newcastle and Bedford were in a sense rivals, they were often found willing to work together ; and the whig leaders, however great their internal dissensions, were apt to unite when their authority was threatened by the crown.

The most typical, and in many ways the most successful politician of the period, was Thomas Pelham-Holles, Duke of Newcastle. Succeeding to the barony of Pelham on the death of his father in 1712, he was created Earl of Clare in 1714; and, in the year following, received the title of Duke of Newcastle upon Tyne, as a reward for raising a troop of horse for service against the Pretender. Many years later he was given a second dukedom, that of Newcastle-under-Lyme, as a consolation for the loss of office. Possessed of great wealth, for, in addition to his paternal inheritance, he had succeeded early in life to the vast estates of his uncle, John Holies, Duke of Newcastle, he embarked upon a political career, declaring for the House of Brunswick and whig principles. Rising quickly to official importance, he became secretary of state in 1724, and continued to hold that office until the death of his brother, Henry Pelham, compelled him to exchange it for the first Lordship of the treasury, which post he occupied when George III ascended the throne. Few eighteenth century statesmen were more bitterly attacked by their contemporaries or have been more severely judged by historians. Depicted as a treacherous buffoon, and as devoid of any ability save a capacity for low intrigue, Newcastle has been caricatured rather than portrayed by writers who never grow weary of relating his rather foolish mannerisms and his many eccentricities. Though inferior to Pitt, both as a man and a statesman, Newcastle proved himself a capable politician and an industrious administrator.

He was by no means so habitually deficient in his management of foreign affairs as has been often represented ; but it is unlikely that he would have risen to the eminence he attained if he had not shown himself a thoroughly efficient party manager. Throughout a lengthy political career he remained true to his belief in the principles of party government, and spared no pains to gain a following which would support him in parliament. He was not squeamish of the means. he practised to obtain his end, and for him the church, the civil service, the bench, seats in parliament, honours, and titles existed largely to buy and keep adherents. But, in thus openly carrying on a crusade of corruption, he differed little from most of his contemporaries, save that he was rewarded by greater success ; and if he had been more scrupulous, it is not improbable that the whig predominance would have been seriously endangered, and George III anticipated by his grandfather in the design of restoring the personal power of the crown. His devotion to party intrigue, sometimes, indeed, led him to underestimate the importance of events which fell outside that sphere of activity; but, as will be seen, he was by no means destitute of real political insight. He may be accused of having lowered the standard of public life, but it is to his credit that, in an age of greed and corruption, he was free from all reproach of desiring to make the pursuit of politics lead to the acquisition of wealth j and, when the days of adversity came, and he was obliged to retire from office, it was found that he had very materially reduced his own fortune in the service of his party.

Newcastle's most intimate friends and political advisers were his brother, Henry Pelham, Philip Yorke, first Earl of Hardwicke, and William Cavendish, fourth Duke of Devonshire. Pelham, a dull and painstaking politician, did not survive the reign of Greorge II, but Hardwicke was to live to see the overthrow of the once triumphant party, and to die in the hour of defeat. The son of a small attorney at Dover, he rose by sheer ability and unremitting industry from the ranks of the middle classes to be lord chancellor of England; and, although his comparatively humble origin was never forgotten by his enemies, he was the cherished friend of Newcastle who was accustomed to ask his advice in every political crisis. In seeking counsel in this quarter Newcastle was guided by a true instinct ; for, though a zealous whig and a firm believer in the principles of party government, Hardwicke was a wise statesman as well as an ardent politician, and had other interests at heart besides the triumph of the particular faction of which he was a member. In legal circles he will always be remembered as one of the greatest of equity judges ; and as a minister his fame has been unjustly tarnished by the attacks directed against him on account of his association with Newcastle. He can at least never be accused of being a mere time-server, for it should be remembered in his favour that, in the face of much temptation, he remained true to the cause he had espoused when it had ceased to be profitable to do so.

The other member of this narrow circle, William Cavendish, fourth Duke of Devonshire, was a typical representative of a family which has always played an honourable part in English history. Inheriting his political principles almost as much as his name and his estates, the Duke of Devonshire rose to high office in the state ; and, although of mediocre ability, was gifted with that equable temperament which is among the inheritances of his house. A strictly honourable politician, and possessed of a fund of sound common-sense, he was universally respected and liked, even by those who were opposed to him; and was often called upon to settle differences which had arisen between men not endowed with his happy disposition.

A rival section of the whig party was led by John, Duke of Bedford, who was destined to play a leading and not always glorious part in the early years of George Ill's reign. With an ancestry as distinguished as the Cavendishes, Bedford's political importance was inevitable ; but, though always asserting his adherence to whig principles, he refused to submit to the Pelham predominance, and formed a faction of his own, which came to be known as the "Bloomsbury gang." A proud and passionate man, prone to take offence, and jealous of his own importance, Bedford was not easy to work with ; but he was by no means without political acumen ; and though he supported the unpopular side in the negotiations which concluded the Seven Years' war, he was able to give a consistent defence of the policy he advocated. In an age carried away by Pitt's imperial ideals, Bedford was what would now be called a "little Englander"; and his reputation has suffered in consequence. Unfortunately, too, for his good fame, though himself a man of strict honour, his followers were some of the most abandoned politicians of the day, preferring places to principles and their own advancement to the country's welfare. During the reign of George II, Grower, Sandwich, and Rigby were the leading members of this discredited faction ; and before any negotiation with Bedford could be brought to a successful issue, it was generally found necessary to satisfy the rapacious appetites of his followers. Lord Grower was perhaps the most respectable member of the party, with the exception of its leader ; but of Rigby nothing good is related save that he drank fair 1 . An unblushing and unscrupulous placeman, he had no thought or care save for his own profit; and under an appearance of jollity and good-nature, concealed a heartless and cynical temperament. By callous self-seeking, and an effrontery which nothing could abash, he became of some political importance, and will always be remembered as the " brazen boatswain of the Bedford crew."

If Bigby was the most grasping, Lord Sandwich was certainly the most dissolute member of this faction. With some pretensions as a patron of art, capable of industry, and not without administrative ability, he would have I>een quite fitted for high political office, were it not that he shocked an easy-going age in the matter of morality by the extent and variety of his excesses. A leading member of one of the most famous Hell-Fire clubs of the period, Sandwich lived and died in defiance of public decency ; and when George III appointed him to be secretary of state, men, forgetting that politicians cannot be pickers and choosers, wondered how so pious a king could select so infamous a servant.