This digression respecting the character of Burke has been longer than I had anticipated; but it will not, I hope, be considered unimportant: for, in addition to the intrinsic interest of the subject, it illustrates the feelings of George III. towards great men, and it shows what the opinions were which in his reign it was thought necessary to hold. In the sequel of this work, I shall trace the effect of such opinions upon the interests of the country, considered as a whole; but for the object of the present introduction, it will be sufficient to point out the connexion in one or two more of those prominent instances, the character of which is too notorious to admit of discussion.

Of these leading and conspicuous events, the American war was the earliest, and for several years it almost entirely absorbed the attention of English politicians. In the reign of George II. a proposal had been made to increase the revenue by taxing the colonies, which, as the Americans were totally unrepresented in parliament, was simply a proposition to tax an entire people without even the form of asking their consent. This scheme of public robbery was rejected by that able and moderate man who was then at the head of affairs; and the suggestion, being generally deemed impracticable, fell to the ground, and seems, indeed, hardly to have excited attention. 362 But what was deemed by the government of George II. to be a dangerous stretch of arbitrary power, was eagerly welcomed by the government of George III. For the new king, having the most exalted notion of his own authority, and being, from his miserable education, entirely ignorant of public affairs, thought that to tax the Americans for the benefit of the English, would be a masterpiece of policy. When, therefore, the old idea was revived, it met with his cordial acquiescence; and when the Americans showed their intention of resisting this monstrous injustice, he was only the more confirmed in his opinion that it was necessary to curb their unruly will. Nor need we be surprised at the rapidity with which such angry feelings broke out. Indeed, looking, on the one hand, at the despotic principles, which, for the first time since the Revolution, were now revived at the English court; and looking, on the other hand, at the independent spirit of the colonists,it was impossible to avoid a struggle between the two parties; and the only questions were, as to what form the contest would take, and towards which side victory was most likely to incline.363

362 "It had been proposed to Sir Robert Walpole to raise the revenue by imposing taxes on America; but that minister, who could foresee beyond the benefit of the actual moment, declared it must be a bolder man than himself who should venture on such an expedient." Walpole's George III. vol. ii. p. 70. Compare Phillimore's Mem. of Lyttleton, vol. ii. p. 662; Bancroft's American Revolution, vol. i. p. ; Belsham's Hist. of Great Britain, vol. v. p. 102.

96;

363 That some sort of rupture was unavoidable, must, I think, be admitted; but we

⚫364

On the part of the English government, no time was lost. Five years after the accession of George III., a bill was brought into parliament to tax the Americans ;364 and so complete had been the change in political affairs, that not the least difficulty was found in passing a measure which, in the reign of George II., no minister had dared to propose. Formerly such a proposal, if made, would certainly have been rejected; now the most powerful parties in the state were united in its favor. The king, on every occasion, paid a court to the clergy, to which, since the death of Anne, they had been unaccustomed; he was, therefore, sure of their support, and they zealously aided him in every attempt to oppress the colonies. 365 The aristocracy, a few leading Whigs alone excepted, were on the same side, and looked to the taxation of America as a means of lessening their own contributions.366 As to George III., his feelings on the subject were notorious,367 and the more liberal party not having yet reare not bound to believe the assertion of Horace Walpole, who says (Mem. of George II. vol. i. p. 397) that in 1754 he predicted the American rebellion. Walpole, though a keen observer of the surface of society, was not the man to take a view of this kind; unless, as is hardly probable, he heard an opinion to that effect expressed by his father. Sir Robert Walpole may have said something respecting the increasing love of liberty in the colonies; but it was impossible for him to foresee how that love would be fostered by the arbitrary proceedings of the government of George III. 364 The general proposition was introduced in 1764; the bill itself early in 1765. See Mahon's Hist. of England, vol. v. pp. 82, 85; and Grenville Papers, vol. ii. pp. 373, 374. On the complete change of policy which this indicated, see Brougham's Polit. Philos. part iii. p. 328.

385 The correspondence of that time contains ample proof of the bitterness of the clergy against the Americans. Even in 1777, Burke wrote to Fox: "The Tories do universally think their power and consequence involved in the success of this American business. The clergy are astonishingly warm in it; and what the Tories are when embodied and united with their natural head, the crown, and animated by their clergy, no man knows better than yourself." Burke's Works, vol. ii. p. 390. Compare Bishop Newton's Life of Himself, pp. 134, 157.

366"The overbearing aristocracy desired some reduction of the land-tax, at the expense of America." Bancroft's Hist. of the American Revolution, vol. ii. p. 414. The merchants, on the other hand, were opposed to these violent proceedings. See, on this contrast between the landed and commercial interests, a letter from Lord Shelburne, in 1774, and another from Lord Camden, in 1775, in Chatham Correspond. vol. iv. pp. 341, 401. See also the speeches of Trecothick and Vyner, in Parl. Hist. vol. xvi. p. 507, vol. xviii. p. 1361.

367 It was believed at the time, and it is not improbable, that the king himself suggested the taxation of America, to which Grenville at first objected. Compare Wraxall's Mem. of his own Time, vol. ii. pp. 111, 112, with Nicholls's Recollections, vol. i. pp. 205, 386. This may have been merely a rumour; but it is quite consistent with every thing we know of the character of George III., and there can, at all events, be no doubt as to his feelings respecting the general question. It is certain that he over-persuaded Lord North to engage in the contest with America, and induced that minister to go to war, and to continue it even after success had become hopeless. See Bancroft's American Revolution, vol. iii. pp. 307, 308; Russell's Mem. of Fox, vol. i. pp. 247, 254; and the Bedford Correspond. vol. iii. p. li. See also, in regard to the repeal of the Stamp Act, The Grenville Papers, vol. iii. p. 373; a curious passage, with which Lord Mahon, the last edition of whose history was published in the same year (1853), appears to have been unacquainted. Mahon's Hist. of England, vol. v. p. 139. In America, the sentiments of the king were well known. In 1775, Jefferson writes from Philadelphia: "We are told, and every thing proves it true,

covered from the loss of power consequent on the death of George II., there was little fear of difficulties from the cabinet; it being well known that the throne was occupied by a prince, whose first object was to keep ministers in strict dependence on himself, and who, whenever it was practicable, called into office such weak and flexible men as would yield unhesitating submission to his wishes,368

Every thing being thus prepared, there followed those events which were to be expected from such a combination. Without stopping to relate details which are known to every reader, it may be briefly mentioned that, in this new state of things, the wise and forbearing policy of the preceding reign was set at naught, and the national councils guided by rash and ignorant men, who soon brought the greatest disasters upon the country, and within a few years actually dismembered the empire. In order to enforce the monstrous claim of taxing a whole people without their consent, there was waged against America a war ill-conducted, unsuccessful, and what is far worse, accompanied by cruelties disgraceful to a civilized nation.369 To this may be added, that an immense trade was nearly annihilated; every branch of commerce was thrown into confusion ;370 we were disgraced in the eyes of Europe :371 we incurred an expense of that he is the bitterest enemy we have." Jefferson's Correspond. vol. i. p. 153. And in 1782 Franklin writes to Livingston, "The king hates us most cordially." Life of Franklin, vol. ii. p. 126.

368 46

"A court," as Lord Albemarle observes,-"a court that required ministers to be, not the public servants of the state, but the private domestics of the sovereign.' Albemarle's Mem. of Rockingham, vol. i. p. 248. Compare Bancroft's American Revolution, vol. ii. p. 109. In the same way, Burke, in 1767, writes: "His majesty never was in better spirits. He has got a ministry weak and dependent; and, what is better, willing to continue so." Burke's Correspond. vol. i. p. 133. Ten years later, Lord Chatham openly taunted the king with this disgraceful peculiarity: "Thus to pliable men, not capable men, was the government of this once glorious empire intrusted." Chatham's Speech in 1777, in Adolphus, vol. ii. pp. 499, 500.

369 For some evidence of the ferocity with which this war was conducted by the English, see Tucker's Life of Jefferson, vol. i. pp. 138, 139, 160; Jefferson's Mem, and Correspond. vol. i. pp. 352, 429, vol. ii. pp. 336, 337; Almon's Correspond. of Wilkes, vol. v. pp. 229-232, edit. 1805; Adolphus's Hist. of George III. vol. ii. pp. 362, 391. These horrible cruelties were frequently mentioned in parliament, but without producing the least effect on the king or his ministers. See Parl. Hist. vol. xix. pp. 371, 403, 423, 424, 432, 438, 440, 477, 487, 488, 489, 567, 578, 579, 695, 972, 1393, 1394, vol. xx. p. 43. Among the expenses of the war which government laid before parliament, one of the items was for "five gross of scalping knives." Parl. Hist. vol. xix. pp. 971, 972. See further Mém. de Lafayette, vol. i. pp. 23, 25, 99.

370 In Manchester, "in consequence of the American troubles, nine in ten of the artizans in that town had been discharged from employment." This was stated, in 1766, by no less an authority than Conway. Mahon's Hist. of England, vol. v. p. 135. As the struggle became more obstinate the evil was more marked, and ample evidence of the enormous injury inflicted on England will be found by comparing Franklin's Correspondence, vol. i. p. 352; Adolphus's Hist. of George III. vol. ii. p. 261; Burke's Works, vol. i. p. 111; Parl. Hist. vol. xviii. pp. 734, 951, 963, 964, vol. xix. pp. 259, 341, 710, 711, 1072; Walpole's Mem. of George III. vol. ii. p. 218. 371 Even Mr. Adolphus, in his Tory history, says, that in 1782 the cause of Great

140,000,000l. ;372 and we lost by far the most valuable colonies any nation has ever possessed.

Such were the first fruits of the policy of George III. But the mischief did not stop there. The opinions which it was necessary to advocate in order to justify this barbarous war, recoiled upon ourselves. In order to defend the attempt to destroy the liberties of America, principles were laid down which, if carried into effect, would have subverted the liberties of England. Not only in the court, but in both houses of parliament, from the episcopal bench, and from the pulpits of the church-party, there were promulgated doctrines of the most dangerous kind,doctrines unsuited to a limited monarchy, and, indeed, incompatible with it. The extent to which this reaction proceeded is known to very few readers, because the evidence of it is chiefly to be found in the parliamentary debates, and in the theological literature, particularly the sermons, of that time, none of which are now much studied. But, not to anticipate matters belonging to another part of this work, it is enough to say, that the danger was so imminent as to make the ablest defenders of popular liberty believe that every thing was at stake; and that if the Americans were vanquished, the next step would be to attack the liberties of England, and endeavour to extend to the mothercountry the same arbitrary government which by that time would have been established in the colonies. 373

Whether or not these fears were exaggerated, is a question of considerable difficulty; but after a careful study of that time, and a study too from sources not much used by historians, I feel satisfied that they who are best acquainted with the period will be the most willing to admit that, though the danger may have been overrated, it was far more serious than men are now

Britain seemed degraded to the lowest state; ill success and the prevalent opinion of mismanagement rendered the espousal of it among the selfish powers of the continent almost disreputable." Hist. of George III. vol. iii. pp. 391, 392. For proof of the opinions held in foreign countries respecting this, I cannot do better than refer to Mem. de Ségur, vol. iii. pp. 184, 185; Euvres de Turgot, vol. ix. p. 377; Soulavie, Mem. de Louis XVI, vol. iv. pp. 363, 364; Koch, Tableau des Révolutions, vol. ii. pp. 190-194; Mem. of Mallet du Pan, vol. i. p. 37.

$72 Sir John Sinclair, in his Hist. of the Revenue, vol. ii. p. 114, says 139, 171, 8767. 373 Dr. Jebb, an able observer, thought that the American war must be decisive of the liberties of both countries." Disney's Life of Jebb, p. 92. So, too, Lord Chatham wrote in 1777, "poor England will have fallen upon her own sword." The Grenville Papers, vol. iv. p. 573. In the same year, Burke said of the attempt made to rule the colonies by military force, "that the establishment of such a power in America will utterly ruin our finances (though its certain effect), is the smallest part of our concern. It will become an apt, powerful, and certain engine for the destruction of our freedom here." Burke's Works, vol. ii. p. 399. Compare vol. i. pp. 189, 210; Parl. Hist. vol. xvi. pp. 104, 107, 651, 652, vol. xix. pp. 11, 1056, vol. xx. p. 119, vol. xxi. p. 907. Hence it was that Fox wished the Americans to be victorious (Russell's Mem. of Fox, vol. i. p. 143); for which some writers have actually accused him of want of patriotism!

inclined to believe. At all events, it is certain that the general aspect of political affairs was calculated to excite great alarm. It is certain that, during many years, the authority of the crown continued to increase, until it reached a height of which no example had been seen in England for several generations. It is certain that the Church of England exerted all her influence in favour of those despotic principles which the king wished to enforce. It is also certain that, by the constant creation of new peers, all holding the same views, the character of the House of Lords was undergoing a slow but decisive change; and that, whenever a favourable opportunity arose, high judicial appointments and high ecclesiastical appointments were conferred upon men notorious for their leaning towards the royal prerogative. These are facts which cannot be denied; and putting them together, there remains, I think, no doubt, that the American war was a great crisis in the history of England, and that if the colonists had been defeated, our liberties would have been for a time in considerable jeopardy. From that risk we were saved by the Americans, who with heroic spirit resisted the royal armies, defeated them at every point, and at length, separating themselves from the mother-country, began that wonderful career, which in less than eighty years has raised them to an unexampled prosperity, and which to us ought to be deeply interesting, as showing what may be effected by the unaided resources of a free people.

Seven years after this great contest had been brought to a successful close, and the Americans, happily for the interests of mankind, had finally secured their independence, another nation rose up and turned against its rulers. The history of the causes of the French Revolution will be found in another part of this volume; at present we have only to glance at the effects it produced upon the policy of the English government. In France, as is well known, the movement was extremely rapid; the old institutions, which were so corrupted as to be utterly unfit for use, were quickly destroyed; and the people, frenzied by centuries of oppression, practised the most revolting cruelties, saddening the hour of their triumph by crimes that disgraced the noble cause for which they struggled.

All this, frightful as it was, did nevertheless form a part of the natural course of affairs; it was the old story of tyranny exciting revenge, and revenge blinding men to every consequence except the pleasure of glutting their own passions. If, under these circumstances, France had been left to herself, the Revolution, like all other revolutions, would soon have subsided, and a form of government have arisen suited to the actual condition