DEBATES ON THE INCREASE OF CROWN INFLUENCE.
During the above debates county petitions were daily laid before the house, and by the month of April the speaker’s table was almost buried beneath them. They were ordered to be taken into consideration by a committee of the whole house, and on the 6th of April a great public meeting was held at Westminster, with the advice and concurrence of the corresponding committee in the other parts of the kingdom, and with the avowed intention of giving weight to these petitions. On the same evening the house resolved itself into a committee, and Mr. Dunning moved his celebrated resolution, “That the influence of the crown had increased, was increasing, and ought to be diminished.” Dunning remarked, that all the petitions agreed in one great fundamental point; namely, that limits ought to be set to the alarming influence of the crown, and to the expenditure of the public money by means of which that influence had been obtained. He then exhibited, in a continued series, the history and philosophy of constitutional law, and animadverted on measures which endangered British rights and liberties in former years. Afterwards he drew a highly-coloured and exaggerated picture of the conduct of present ministers, and endeavoured to show that it tended to produce similar mischiefs to those which had been produced by the counsels of the House of Stuart. In particular, he criticised the conduct of ministers with regard to Burke’s economical plan of reform, which, he said, they were reducing to a nullity—to a thing naked and shorn, and useless to the country; and he expressed a hope that the people of England would resent the insults they had received from men who added mockery and contempt to oppression and neglect. Those who supported Dunning maintained that it was solely through the corrupt influence of the crown that Lord North had retained his office so long; that his sole occupation for years past had been to frame excuses and expedients, in order to procure supplies from year to year; and that he had neither method in his financial department, nor any comprehensive scheme of any kind. The speaker, less convinced by the eloquent pleadings of the petitions before him, than by his recent disappointment, took part with the opposition. He insisted strongly on the exorbitant power of the crown, and the increase of corrupt influence; and contended, that it was the duty of the house to attend to the demands of the petitioners. The effect which the arguments of the opposition had upon the country gentlemen was so great that ministers became alarmed. The lord-advocate of Scotland, Mr. Dundas, attempted therefore to stifle inquiry, by moving, that the speaker do leave the chair; and this failing, Lord North rose to defend his own conduct. He spoke at considerable length, and in the course of his speech declared that he was ready to retire from office whenever his sovereign and the people desired it; adding, that if he had continued so long in office, it was because the country had no faith in the wisdom and patriotism of his opponents. His speech seemed to be lost to the members of the house, and Mr. Dundas rose again to his rescue, proposing this time, as an amendment to the original proposition, the prefix of the words, “That it is now necessary to declare.” This was carried by a majority of eighteen; and Mr. Dunning, pursuing his success, proposed and carried a second proposition—namely, “That it was competent to the house to examine into and to correct abuses in the expenditure of the civil list revenues, as well as every other branch of the public revenue, whenever it should seem expedient to that house.” A third motion, strongly opposed to ministers, was also carried by Mr. Thomas Pitt, which set forth “that it was the duty of the house to provide immediate and effectual redress of the abuses complained of in the petitions.” Nor was the minister permitted yet to retire to his peaceful slumber. Fox moved, that the three resolutions should be immediately reported; and though Lord North contended that this was unusual, violent, and arbitrary, the resolutions and reports were severally reported and received, and were agreed to and passed by the house without a division.
Elated by success, on the 10th of April, the committee being re-assembled, Mr. Dunning continued his attack. He moved, “That in order to secure the independence of parliament and obviate all suspicion of its purity, the proper officer should lay before the house, within seven days after the meeting of parliament, every session, an account of all monies paid out of the civil list, or any part of the public revenue, to, or for the use of, or in trust for any member of parliament.” This, though opposed by ministers, was carried; and Dunning then moved, “that the persons holding the offices of treasurer of the chamber, treasurer of the household, cofferer of the household, comptroller of the household, master of the household, clerks of the green cloth and their deputies, should be rendered incapable of sitting in the house of commons.” This motion produced a long and earnest debate, but it was carried by a majority of two, the numbers being two hundred and fifteen against two hundred and thirteen. Thus far the opposition had been triumphant: three days after, however, they were doomed to receive a check. A bill, brought in by Mr. Crewe, for excluding all revenue-officers from voting at elections of members of parliament, was rejected by a considerable majority. Business was now interrupted for ten days, by the sudden illness of the speaker; and when the house re-assembled the sentiments of members were found to have undergone a change. On the 24th of April, Dunning moved for an address to the king, deprecating “the dissolution or prorogation of parliament before proper measures were adopted to fulfil the objects of the petitions.” This motion, which was warmly and eloquently supported by the mover, and Burke, and Fox, was rejected by a majority of fifty-one; the numbers being two hundred and fifty-four against two hundred and three. Enraged at this sudden and unexpected check, Mr. Fox rose to reprobate the conduct of those members who had receded from the solemn engagements into which they had so recently entered. A rude roar of voices was raised to put him down, but Fox would not be silenced; and his friends appealed to the chair to stop by its authority the disgraceful disorder. Silence being imposed on every tongue in the house by the speaker, Fox then delivered one of the severest philippics that was ever delivered within the walls of the house of commons. The vote of that night, said the impassioned orator, was scandalous, disgraceful, and treacherous: it was impossible to contemplate without surprise and indignation, the conduct of men, who, after resolving that the influence of the crown was increased, and ought to be diminished—that the grievances of the people ought to be redressed—and who had pledged themselves to that house, the nation, and their constituents, to redress the grievances complained of, now shamefully fled from their solemn engagement. It was not against ministers and their friends that he lodged this complaint, he remarked: it was against the men who sat on his side of the house, and who had voted with him on the 6th of April. As for the ministerial phalanx, he observed, he held them in the greatest contempt. They were slaves of the worst kind, because they had sold themselves to work mischief. Yet, base as they were, they had some virtues to pride themselves on. They were faithful to their leader, consistent in their conduct, and had not added to their other demerits the absurdity and treachery of one day resolving an opinion to be true, and the next day declaring it to be a falsehood. They had neither deceived their patrons, their friends, nor their country with false hopes and delusive promises. Dunning spoke after Fox, and declared that the division of that night was decisive as to the petitions of the people: it amounted to a total rejection of their general and ardent prayer, and that all hope of obtaining redress for the people from that house was at an end. Lord North replied in a long speech, in which he endeavoured to throw a protecting shield over those who had subjected themselves to Fox’s reproaches, and to show that Dunning’s fears were unfounded. The resolutions of the 6th of April, he said, were still in existence, and that other measures might be proposed on them in which those who did not approve of the means of redress proposed this day might readily concur. Opposition, however, were evidently of opinion that their cause was lost. Yet, on the 19th of May, Sergeant Adair moved the withholding the grant of any further supplies till the grievances of the people were redressed; and this motion being negatived, a week later Dunning moved, “that the two resolutions passed on the 10th of April, be reported.” A motion, however, from the opposite side of the house, “that the chairman leave the chair,” which amounted to a dissolution of the committee, was carried by one hundred and seventy-seven to one hundred and thirty-four.
Such was the termination of one of the most critical struggles which had occurred in the house of commons during the reign of George III. Out of doors astonishment was expressed on the one hand at the encouragement which Mr. Dunning’s motion received from a large party who had so warmly taken up the American war; and on the other, at the sudden change of sentiment which had taken place among many who had supported that motion. By some historians this change is attributed to influence, corruption, and treachery. The charge, however, is not well founded, for none of these causes could have been at work when they quitted the ranks of ministers to vote with opposition. It seems, therefore, rather to have arisen from the peculiar temper of the times, and to the condition in which the nation was placed at this period. The violence of opposition, also, and their exultation on their triumphs may have had their effects on the minds of the more sober-thinking members of the house: they may have become convinced that the movements of the leaders of opposition, so far from being adopted from a love of their country, had their origin in that bad feeling of human nature—self-interest.