[196] Afterwards Earl of Sandwich.
[197] Wraxall: _Historical Memoirs of My Own Times_.
George III, however, did not hold that these considerations should weigh with his minister, whom henceforth he regarded as little better than a traitor. It was characteristic of the King that in his anger he at once forgot the services of twelve years, and sought to avenge himself for the desertion, as he called it, by withholding the pension usually granted to a Prime Minister on retirement. Lord Chancellor Thurlow, who, apparently, had more consideration for George"s reputation than the monarch himself, represented that Lord North was not opulent, that his father was still living, and that his sons had spent a great deal of money. "Lord North is no friend of mine," said the ungrateful King.
"That may be so," replied Lord Thurlow, "but the world thinks otherwise: and your Majesty"s character requires that Lord North should have the usual pension."[198] A pension of 4,000 a year was then reluctantly granted.
[198] Nicholls: _Recollections and Reflections_.
The resignation of Lord North was a great blow to his royal master, who saw that with the retirement of this minister would disappear the carefully built superstructure of government by personal influence. "He would cease to "be King" in his own acceptance of the word, and would have to surrender the power for which he had been struggling for two-and-twenty years into the hands of the party most hateful to him."[199] "At last the fatal day has come," wrote George, who seriously thought of retiring to Hanover in preference to placing himself in the hands of the hated Opposition. "I would rather lose my crown than submit to the Opposition," he had declared; and on December 18, 1779, he had written to Lord Thurlow, "From the cold disdain with which I am treated, it is evident to me what treatment I am to expect from Opposition, if I was to call them now into my service. To obtain their support I must deliver up my person, my principles, my dominions into their hands."
[199] Albemarle: _Memoirs of Rockingham_.
The King, however, was not of a nature to surrender at discretion, and Thurlow was sent to Lord Rockingham to ascertain what terms of capitulation could be obtained for the sovereign. It is proof of the want of trust in George III that the Duke of Richmond, who had had much experience of the methods of the Court, should, with apologies for "this piece of impertinent advice," write in the following strain to Rockingham. "Let me beseech you not to think that any preliminary is opening, for I have good reason for believing nothing but trick is meant. For G.o.d"s sake, your own and the country"s sake, keep back and be very coy. Nothing but absolute necessity and severe pressure or force will induce the Court to come to you in such a manner as to enable you to do any good. These times are coming, and you must soon see all at your feet in the manner you would wish and with the full means to do what is right. In the meanwhile they will try all little tricks, and most amply try to flatter your prejudices, if they conceive you have any. If to anything like this you give way, you ruin yourself and them, and the kingdom into the bargain, whereas by firmness all will come right yet, and you will carry the nation with you with such _eclat_ as to ensure you the means of doing what you wish."[200]
[200] Albemarle: _Memoirs of Rockingham_.
Lord Rockingham took full advantage of this sage counsel, and to the overture of the King made reply, "that he was very willing to serve his Majesty but requested the honour of being admitted to a private audience before any administration should be arranged." This demand George ignored. "I told you that divisions would be attempted and so it has been," Walpole wrote on March 23. "Lord Rockingham"s const.i.tutional demands not proving palatable, on Thursday evening (21st) Lord Shelburne was sent for to a house in the Park, and, after a parley of three hours, declined. Next morning Lord Gower was tried, ditto. At four o"clock to-day, and this is Sat.u.r.day, no new step has been taken: if the whole flag is not hung out this evening or to-morrow, I do not know what may happen on Monday."
Eventually, however, the King arranged the administration with Shelburne, and then sent him to inform Rockingham of the names of the cabinet ministers. This irregularity angered the latter, who seriously thought to decline to serve, for, as Admiral Keppel told Nicholls, he "thought that the King had manifested such personal dislike to him, by refusing him an audience, and arranging the administration with Lord Shelburne, that, in his own opinion, he was not a fit person to be in the King"s service."[201] Besides this objection, Rockingham had no faith in Shelburne,[202] but the latter protested as a guarantee of good faith, "I pa.s.sed my eldest to Lord Rockingham, which I had no occasion to do, for I might have been Prime Minister myself"; and, finally, persuaded by Fox, Burke, and the Duke of Richmond, Rockingham consented to accept office, and kissed hands on March 27. "I was abused for lying Gazettes," said Lord North, "but there are more lies in this one (containing the official announcement of the Whig Cabinet) than in all mine. Yesterday his Majesty was _pleased_ to appoint the Marquis of Rockingham, Mr. Charles Fox, the Duke of Richmond, etc., etc."
[201] Nicholls: _Recollections and Reflections_.
[202] Shelburne was most unpopular and always suspected of insincerity.
It was to him that Goldsmith made the singularly _mal-a-propos_ remark: "Do you know, I could never conceive the reason why they call you Malagrida, for Malagrida was a very good sort of man."
Parliament met on April 8, and a strange sight met the eyes of the onlookers. "Never was a more total change of costume beheld than the House of Commons presented to the eye when that a.s.sembly met for the despatch of business after the Easter recess. The Treasury Bench, as well as the places behind it, had been for so many years occupied by Lord North and his friends, that it became difficult to recognise them again in their new seats, dispersed over the Opposition benches, in great coats, frocks, and boots. Mr. Ellis himself appeared for the first time in his life in an undress. To contemplate the Ministers, their successors, emerged from their obscure lodgings, or from Brookes"s, having thrown off their blue and buff uniforms; now ornamented with the appendages of dress, or returning from Court, decorated with swords, lace and hair-powder, excited still more astonishment."[203]
[203] Wraxall: _Historical Memoirs of My Own Times_.
In the second Rockingham Administration Charles James Fox held the office of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and it cost George III much to sanction this appointment, for he hated Fox more than even he hated Chatham, not only for his att.i.tude in politics but also for the irregularity of his private life. "The King," wrote Wraxall, "who considered Fox as a man ruined in fortune, of relaxed morals, and surrounded with a crowd of followers resembling him in these particulars, deprecated as the severest misfortune to himself and to his subjects, the necessity of taking such a person, however eminent for capacity, into his confidence or councils."[204] It was inevitable, however, that Fox should hold high office, for he was undoubtedly the foremost man in the Rockingham party. Having entered Parliament in 1768, he had distinguished himself in the following year by a speech opposing the claim of Wilkes to take his seat as member for Middles.e.x. "It was all off-hand, all argumentative, in reply to Mr. Burke and Mr.
Wedderburn, and excessively well indeed," said his proud father. "I hear it spoken of as an extraordinary thing, and I am, as you see, not a little pleased with it."
[204] _Historical Memoirs of My Own Times._
[Ill.u.s.tration: _Photo by Emery Walker._
_From a bust by J. Nollekens, R.A._
CHARLES JAMES FOX
_To face p. 180, Vol. II_]
Fox was rewarded for his opposition to the popular demagogue with a Lordship of the Admiralty in February, 1770, under Lord North, but, as it has already been stated, he resigned in order to be free to oppose the Royal Marriage Act. He began to be recognised as a power in the House, and Lord North soon made overtures to his erstwhile colleague to rejoin the ministry as a Lord of the Treasury. This Fox did within a year of his resignation, but his independence soon brought about another rupture: and when, on a question of procedure, he caused the defeat of the ministry by pressing an amendment to a division, the King wrote to Lord North: "Indeed, that young man has so thoroughly cast off every principle of common honour and honesty that he must become as contemptible as he is odious; and I hope you will let him know you are not insensible of his conduct towards you."[205] The Prime Minister took the hint, and dismissed Fox in a delightfully laconic note. "Sir, His Majesty has thought proper to order a new Commission of the Treasury in which I do not see your name."[206] This was thought to be a good thing for Fox; and Horace Walpole wrote on February 24, 1774: "The famous Charles Fox was this morning turned out of his place of Lord of the Treasury for great flippancies in the House towards North. His parts will now have a full opportunity of showing whether they can balance his character, or whether patriotism can whitewash it."
[205] _Correspondence of George III with Lord North._
[206] Russell: _Life and Times of C. J. Fox_.
In opposition Fox proved himself a doughty opponent of his late leader"s American policy, and his vigorous speeches on the subject earned him the undying enmity of the King. "The war of the Americans is a war of pa.s.sion," he declared on November 26, 1778, in an endeavour to force the ministry into a pacific path; "it is of such a nature as to be supported by the most powerful virtues, love of liberty and of country, and at the same time by those pa.s.sions in the human heart which give courage, strength, and perseverance to man; the spirit of revenge for the injury you have done them, of retaliation for the hardships inflicted on them, and of opposition to the august powers you would have exercised over them; everything combines to animate them to this war, and such a war is without end; for whatever obstinacy enthusiasm ever inspired man with, you will now have to contend with in America, no matter what gives birth to that enthusiasm, whether the name of religion or of liberty, the effects are the same; it inspires a spirit that is unconquerable and solicits us to undergo difficulties and dangers; and as long as there is a man in America, so long will you have him against you in the field."
And in the following year he compared George III with Henry VI. "Both owed the crown to revolutions, both were pious princes, and both lost the acquisitions of their predecessors." George III could not differentiate between doctrine and action, and, because Fox supported the rights of the Americans, looked upon him henceforth as a rebel.
Later, when of all the colonies only Boston remained in the hands of the English, and Wedderburn with foolhardy audacity ventured in the House of Commons to compare North as a war minister with Chatham, Fox created a sensation by declaring that "not Lord Chatham, nor Alexander the Great, nor Caesar ever conquered so much territory in the course of all their wars, as Lord North had lost in one campaign!"
[Ill.u.s.tration: _From a caricature published March 11th, 1784_
THE UNFORTUNATE a.s.s
_To face p. 183, Vol. II_]
Fox"s most grievous exhibition in the eyes of the sovereign was, however, his speech on the first day of the autumn session of 1781 in the debate on the Address to the Crown. "Those who are ignorant of the character of the Prince whose Speech we have just heard might be induced to consider him as an unfeeling despot, exulting in the horrid sacrifice of the liberty and lives of his people," he said.[207] The Speech itself, divested of the disguise of royal forms, can only mean, "Our losses in America have been most calamitous. The blood of my subjects has flowed in copious streams, throughout every part of that continent.
The treasures of Great Britain have been wantonly lavished; while the load of taxes imposed on an overburdened country is becoming intolerable. Yet I will continue to tax you to the last shilling. When, by Lord Cornwallis"s surrender they are for ever extinct, and a further continuance of hostilities can only accelerate the ruin of the British Empire, I prohibit you from thinking of peace. My rage for conquest is unquenched and my revenge unsated: nor can anything except the total subjugation of my revolted American subjects, allay my animosity."
[207] "The autumnal session of Parliament was opened on November 27 by a speech from the Throne, the language of which was not less determinate than it had ever been in maintaining the necessity of continuing the most vigorous exertions for the preservation of the essential rights and permanent interests of the country."--Aikin: _The Annals of the Reign of George III_.
This speech, which George III regarded as an open declaration of war against himself, earned golden opinions for the orator. "This session was the glorious campaign of Charles Fox," says Nicholls[208]; and Walpole at this time wrote to Sir Horace Mann, "Mr. Fox is the first figure in all the places I have mentioned, the hero in Parliament, at the gaming table, at Newmarket." The King, however, very clearly showed his opinion of Fox, when at a _levee_ early in March, 1782, the latter presented an Address from Westminster. "The King took it out of his hand without deigning to give him a look even, or a word; he took it as you would take your pocket-handkerchief from your _valet-de-chambre_ without any mark of displeasure or attention, or expression of countenance whatever, and pa.s.sed it to his lord-in-waiting, who was the Duke of Queensberry."[209]
[208] _Recollections and Reflections._
Indeed, George III had made up his mind that under no circ.u.mstances should this particular member of the Opposition hold office. "I was a.s.sured last night," George Selwyn wrote to Lord Carlisle on March 13, 1782, "that the King is so determined as to Charles, that he will not hear his name mentioned in any overtures for a negotiation, and declares that the proposal for introducing him into his councils is totally inadmissible.[209] I should not be surprised if this was true in its fullest extent!"[210]
[209] _George Selwyn: His Life and His Letters._
[210] _Ibid._
Fox"s att.i.tude was certainly not conciliatory, if reliance may be placed on George Selwyn, who was certain to exaggerate unamiable traits in the conduct of the statesman. "He (Fox) spoke of all coming to a final issue now within a very short s.p.a.ce of time," Selwyn wrote on March 19, 1782; "he talked of the King under the description of Satan, a comparison which he seems fond of, and has used to others; so he is _sans menagement de paroles_. It is the _bon vainqueur et despotique_; he has adopted all the supremacy he pretended to dread in his Majesty." And Fox apparently was not the only member of the party excited by the prospect of power. "I stayed at Brookes"s this morning till between two and three," wrote the same correspondent two days later, "and then Charles was giving audiences in every corner of the room, and that idiot Lord Derby[211] telling aloud whom he should turn out, how civil he intended to be to the Prince and how rude to the King."[212]
[211] Edward, twelfth Earl of Derby (1752-1834).
[212] _George Selwyn: His Life and His Letters._
[Ill.u.s.tration:
_Keppel The King Richmond Shelburne Fox_
_From a caricature published in 1782_
THE CAPTIVE PRINCE, OR, LIBERTY GONE MAD
_To face p. 186, Vol II_]
The King, faithful to the underhand methods that he had so often employed with success, at once attempted to sow the seeds of dissension in the cabinet; but in truth this was unnecessary, for, with five Rockinghamites, five Shelburnites and Thurlow, the King"s nominee, comprising that body, "every man saw that such a cabinet was formed for contention, and that it could not long hold together."[213] George deliberately showed his aversion to the Prime Minister, by withholding from him his confidence; and, indeed, he could not forgive him for pa.s.sing a measure for "an effectual plan of economy throughout the branches of public expenditure," the avowed object of which was to "circ.u.mscribe the unconst.i.tutional power of the Crown"; that is to say, the number of sinecures at the sovereign"s disposal was effectively diminished, the amount of secret service money was reduced, and only those could hold patent places in the colonies who would live there.
Burke was responsible for this Bill, which deprived King and ministers of many sources of patronage and compelled them to fall back on peerages as rewards for services. "I fear," said Burke, referring to the subsequent lavish bestowal of peerages, "that I am partly accountable for so disproportionate an increase of honours, by having deprived the Crown and the minister of so many other sources of recompense or reward, which were extinguished by my Bill of Reform."[214]
[213] Prior: _Life of Burke_.
[214] Prior: _Life of Burke_.
[Ill.u.s.tration: _From a portrait by Sir Joshua Reynolds_