MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.
Parliament met this year on the 26th of October. The speech from the throne, on this occasion, was unusually long and energetic, and, as might be expected, its chief topic was the revolt of the colonies. His majesty remarked:—“Those who have too long successfully laboured to inflame my people in America by gross misrepresentation, and to infuse into their minds a system of opinions repugnant to the true constitution of the colonies, and to their subordinate relation to Great Britain, now openly avow their revolt, hostility, and rebellion. They have raised troops, and are collecting a naval force; they have seized the public revenue, and assumed to themselves legislative, executive, and judicial powers, which they already exercise in a most arbitrary manner, over the persons and properties of their fellow-subjects; and although many of these unhappy people may still retain their loyalty, and may be too wise not to see the fatal consequences of this usurpation, and may wish to resist it; yet the torrent of violence has been strong enough to compel their acquiescence, till a sufficient force shall appear to support them. The authors and promoters of this desperate conspiracy have, in the conduct of it, derived great advantage from the difference of our intention and theirs. They only meant to amuse, by vague expressions of attachment to the parent state, and the strongest protestations of loyalty to me, whilst they were preparing for a general revolt. On our part, though it was declared in your last session that a rebellion existed within the province of Massachusets Bay, yet even that province we wished to reclaim, rather than subdue. The resolutions of parliament breathed a spirit of moderation and forbearance; conciliatory propositions accompanied the measures to enforce authority; and the coercive acts were adapted to cases of criminal combination among subjects not then in arms. I have acted with the same temper—anxious to prevent, if it had been possible, the effusion of the blood of my subjects, and the calamities which are inseparable from a state of war; still hoping that my people in America would have discerned the traitorous views of their leaders, and have been convinced, that to be a subject of Great Britain, with all its consequences, is to be the freest member of any civil society in the known world. The rebellious war now levied is become more general, and is manifestly carried on for the purpose of establishing an independent empire. I need not dwell upon the fatal effects of the success of such a plan. The object is too important—the spirit of the British nation too high—the resources with which God hath blessed her too numerous—to give up so many colonies, which she has planted with great industry, nursed with great tenderness, encouraged with many commercial advantages, and protected and defended at such expense of blood and treasure.” His majesty continued, that it was now necessary to put a stop to these disorders, and that, for this purpose, he had greatly increased his naval establishment, and augmented his land-forces. He had sent, he said, Hanoverian troops to Gibraltar and Port Mahon, to replace such British regiments as should be drawn from those garrisons for service in America; and he had received friendly offers of foreign assistance. His majesty also professed his readiness to forgive the colonists when they became sensible of their error; for which purpose, to prevent inconvenience, he would give, he said, a discretionary power to commissioners to grant general pardons, who might, he thought, be likewise entrusted with authority to restore the free exercise of its trade and commerce to any colony on making its submission. He concluded by informing both houses, that he saw no probability of any impediment to his measures from the hostility of foreign powers, since they had expressed their friendly assurances.
The address proposed by ministers was, as usual, a mere echo of the speech, and an amendment was proposed in the commons, by Lord John Cavendish, recommending that the whole should be expunged except the pro forma introductory paragraph, and that the following should be substituted,—“That they beheld with the utmost concern the disorders and discontents in the colonies rather increased than diminished by the means that had been used to suppress and allay them; a circumstance alone sufficient to give them just reason to fear that those means were not originally well considered, or properly adapted to their ends. That they were satisfied by experience that the misfortune had, in a great measure, arisen from the want of full and perfect information of the true state and condition of the colonies being laid before parliament; by reason of which, measures injurious and inefficacious had been carried into execution, from whence no salutary end could have been reasonably expected; tending to tarnish the lustre of the British arms, to bring discredit on the wisdom of his majesty’s councils, and to nourish, without hope of end, a most unhappy civil war. That, deeply impressed with the melancholy state of public concerns, they would, in the fullest information they could obtain, and with the most mature deliberation they could employ, review the whole of the late proceedings, that they might be enabled to discover, as they would be most willing to apply, the most effectual means of restoring order to the distracted affairs of the British empire, confidence to his majesty’s government, obedience, by a prudent and temperate use of its powers, to the authority of parliament, and satisfaction and happiness to all his people. That by these means they trusted to avoid any occasion of having recourse to the alarming and dangerous expedient of calling in foreign forces to the support of his majesty’s authority within his own dominions, and the still more dreadful calamity of shedding British blood by British arms.” An acrimonious debate followed this proposal, in which the opposition vehemently arraigned the principle and conduct of the contest; assumed the facts contained in the speech to be untrue; condemned the confiding such important fortresses as Port Mahon and Gibraltar to foreigners; and exposed the idea of conquest to ridicule. In reply, Lord North urged the necessity of regaining the colonies, and exposed the extravagant pretensions of the colonial assemblies, as well as of the general congress, and the encroachments on all the rights of the parent state. He also defended the conduct of ministers, maintaining that they had tried conciliation, but that the attempt had signally failed: lenity on the part of government and parliament being construed by the Americans into weakness and fear. Parliament had, he said, during the last session obviated the objections made to the right of taxing their colonies by permitting the Americans to tax themselves in their own assemblies; and yet not one assembly would offer a single shilling towards the common exigencies of the state. He observed, that to repeal every act passed relating to the colonies, since the year 1703, would indeed terminate the dispute, as from that moment America would be raised to independence: at the same time he vindicated those acts from the charge of being either ungenerous or unjust. The amendment was rejected by a majority of two hundred and seventy-eight against one hundred and eight, and the original question was then carried without a division.
A similar amendment was moved in the house of lords by the Marquess of Rockingham, and a debate equally warm ensued. Lord Gower frankly avowed that he with his brethren in office had been misled in their conduct with respect to American affairs. New York, he observed, had been forced into hostile measures by the insurgents of Connecticut, and he predicted that if the friends of government were well supported by a force from England, the colonies would be brought to a sense of their duty without the shedding of more blood. The Earl of Shelburne termed this prediction rash, and advanced it as an incontrovertible fact, “that the commerce of America was the vital stream of this empire.” At the same time, while he considered that the independence of the colonies would be the result of the contest, he confessed that this result would be the ruin of Great Britain. The house was next startled with the declarations made by the Duke of Grafton, now lord privy seal. His grace boldly condemned all the proceedings with regard to America during the last twelve months, asserting that he had been deceived and misled upon the whole subject, and that ministers had induced him to lend his countenance to those measures, by withholding information and misrepresenting facts. Grafton also declared that nothing less than a total repeal of all the American acts which had passed since the year 1763, could now restore peace and happiness, or prevent the most fatal consequences to this country: consequences, he said, which he could not think of without the utmost degree of grief and horror. He concluded by declaring that in his present ill state of health, nothing could have induced him to have left his house, but a conviction of his being right,—a knowledge of the dangerous state of the country, and a sense of what he owed to it, as well as to his conscience. The Bishop of Peterborough, who had spoken and voted for coercive measures in previous sessions, acknowledged a similar change in his sentiments to those of the Duke of Grafton, and imputed his previous views to misinformation, and deception on the part of the ministers. This defection, however, did not produce much effect in the house. Ministers descanted powerfully on the great question at issue,—using similar arguments to those which had been employed in the commons, and in the end the Marquess of Rockingham’s amendment was rejected by a majority of sixty-nine to twenty-nine, while the original address was carried by seventy-six to thirty-three, including proxies. A protest was signed by nineteen peers.
On the report of the address in the commons, the opposition took occasion to go over nearly the whole of the ground again. The main stand which they took, however, in this debate, was the measure of entrusting Gibraltar and Minorca, the keys of the Mediterranean, to Hanoverian troops. This they maintained was repugnant to the Bill of Rights, and an alarming precedent of foreigners introduced, and armies raised by a British monarch without the consent of parliament. It was, in fact, loudly denounced as illegal, and in the highest degree unconstitutional. In answering this objection, Lord Thurlow reminded the house that the clause in the Bill of Rights embraced no part of the king’s dominions beyond the limits of Great Britain; that it did not extend to the colonies; and that not a man had been brought, or was to be brought into the kingdom without the consent of parliament. Wedderburne urged similar arguments, and he, with others, represented the urgent necessity of the case, and the danger of delay. A precedent was also quoted for bringing troops into England at a critical period, inasmuch as Dutch troops had been brought over from Holland by George II. in 1745, during the rebellion in Scotland. In the midst of the storm by which he was assailed, Lord North acknowledged himself the adviser of this measure, and treated the opposition with much levity,—but he was obliged to yield to the representations of some of his friends, and to state in conclusion, that though he still considered he was right, yet as other gentlemen, for whom he had ever had the greatest deference, seemed to be of another opinion, he had no objection, notwithstanding any votes now given, that the question should be brought again, in a regular and parliamentary manner, before the house, when he would abide by their determination; and if the measure was found unconstitutional, he would rest a defence on the ground of necessity alone, and receive, as was usual in such cases, the protection of an act of indemnity. This was good parliamentary generalship. Many who would have voted against him, now veered round to his side, and upon a division, the address was passed as reported by a majority of one hundred and seventy-six against seventy-two.
On the 1st of November a similar conflict occurred in the house of lords. The Duke of Manchester moved in that house, “That bringing into any part of the dominion of Great Britain the electoral troops of his majesty, or any other foreign troops, without the previous consent of parliament is dangerous and unconstitutional.” This motion was supported by arguments that the clause in the Bill of Rights ought to extend to the colonies; that the Hanoverian troops would not be under the control of our military law, etc.; that it was not by any means advisable to put them in possession of Gibraltar and Minorca; and that the king had no right to maintain even in a colony, or conquest, or in any part of the British dominions, any other troops than were consented to by parliament. To these arguments it was replied, that the clause in the Bill of Rights specified “within the kingdom,” and also “in time of peace;” that the foreign troops were not “within the kingdom,” and that it was a time of war, and not of peace: that the expression, “within the kingdom,” did not include our colonies; and that should that latitude be given the expression, the rebellious state of America would justify the employment of British troops even upon the principles of the Bill of Rights. It was also argued that the king had at all times during actual war or rebellion, been competent to raise and keep up an army; that in such a case the Bill of Rights had made no distinction between an army of natives and an army of foreigners; that foreigners, since the revolution of 1688, had not only been hired, but even brought into the kingdom; and that there was an existing and paramount necessity at this time for the employment of such troops. Ministers prevailed: the previous question was moved and carried by a majority of 75 against 32. Two days after, a similar resolution was made in the commons by Sir James Lowther, and was there disposed of in a similar manner. About the same time the Bill of Indemnity passed the lower house, but in the upper house it was rejected, on the grounds that it was alike unnecessary and dishonourable to the administration.