LORD NORTH.*
IF any Englishman possessing a casual acquaintance with the history of his own country were asked what he knew of Lord North, the reply would probably be that he was a Minister who habitually wore the blue ribbon of the Garter—a practice which led a witty Frenchman to say to the Duchess of Gloucester, " Pourquoi l'a-t-il, lui P Est-ce pour avoir perdu l'Am6rique ? "—that even the thunderous oratory of Burke often failed to rouse him from the peaceful slumbers in which lie was wont to indulge when seated on the Treasury Bench, that he was mainly responsible for the loss of the American Colonies, and that towards the close of a career chiefly distinguished for placidity of temper and political failure he entered into a short-lived and singularly unfortunate arrangement with his former political opponents. It is singular that up to the present time no biography should have been written of a Minister who presided over the destinies of England during one Of the most momentous periods of her history—a period when, the Duke of Bolton said, "everything was at sea except the British fleet." Mr. Lucas has now supplied this want. He is eminently fitted to deal with the subject. He possesses one of the most indispensable qualifications of a biographer—a cordial but not excessive sympathy with the subject of his biography; to which may be added a very thorough and comprehensive knowledge of the history of the period with which he deals. Now that the passions of the moment have passed away, the most rancorous critic would hardly be disposed to deny some measure of posthumous fame to a man whom so good a judge of companionship as Gibbon described as "one of the best companions in the kingdom," and of whom Wraxall said that be was "personally beloved" not
only by his adherents but also by his political opponents. Some sterling and altruistic public spirit must also have animated the mind of a statesman sufficiently careless of his own reputation to have said that " he wished the time was come for his being abused for having made a disgraceful peace ''' ; and who begged that " superlative jackanapes," as the scurrilous Walpole called Lord Auckland, to abuse hitn personally as much as he liked, but not to take a step which might injure public interests.
Mr. Lucas gathers together very lucidly the threads of the pitiful story which led to the clisastrous war in America, and enables us to distribute political responsibility for the disasters. In a sense it may be said that the responsibility lay, not with any individuals, but with the nation at large. To the present generation it may seem almost a mockery to talk of public opinion at a time when the press was more or less muzzled, and when Sir George Savile could say that " he bad been elected in Lord Rockingham's diningroom." Nevertheless, Wraxall was probably right when he wrote, " No influence of the Court could have kept the support of the House of Commons if the nation had been really opposed." Although failure eventually made the American war unpopular, the nation was in the first instance not opposed to the policy adopted by George III. and his Ministers. America required protection against foreign enemies. What could be more reasonable than to ask that America should bear a portion of the financial burden necessarily involved in that protection P "To most of the politicians and statesmen of that age," Mr. Lucas says, "sovereignty and the right to tax were synonymous." Although, however, the validity of the principle was ratified by the voice of public opinion, the question of whether the right of taxation should or should not be exercised lay wholly within the discretion of the Government. The political instincts and sound common sense of Sir Robert Walpole led him summarily to reject the idea of taxing the Colonies. George III. was less wise. On him more than on any other individual rests the responsibility for the adoption of the policy which led to the American war. From the first moment he held that what the Americans really wanted was complete independence, and to the day of his death be maintained that the greatest political mistake he had ever made was, not the assertion of the right to tax, but the repeal of the Stamp Act, to which he reluctantly consented in 1765. In Lord North he found an instrument admirably suited to execute the policy of which he approved. Grenville was thoroughly wrongheaded but stubborn. He bored the King to distraction, but on one occasion, in 1783, he "succeeded, as no other Minister was ever destined to succeed, in bringing his Majesty into helpless and humiliating submission." North possessed far more judgment and political sagacity than Grenville, but he was pliant ; and, moreover, his skill in debate enabled him to defend the King's case in Parliament with arguments which, though far from irrefutable, were always plausible. Lord North's letters to the King have most unfortunately been lost. They were lent to Lord Brougham, who mislaid them, and they have never been recovered. But enough may be gathered from the letters which the King addressed to North, and which have been preserved, to enable posterity to see that the luckless Minister lived under the iron rule of a relentless taskmaster. His personal views were often sound and statesmanlike, but, Mr. Lucas remarks, "putting opinions into practice was what he did not love." He acted per sistently on the maxim which Ovid puts into the mouth of Medea, "Video meliora proboque ; det,eriora sequor." He was a weak man. His absence of moral strength of purpose contrasted strangely with the robust physical courage which be displayed on many occasions. "Vacillation," Mr. Lucas says, "was his besetting sin." The masterful King, who was a shrewd judge of men, correctly gauged his character when
he said that "Lord North was a man composed of entirely negative qualities, and actuated in every instance by a desire of present ease at the risk of future difficulty." Mr. Lucas has very rightly judged that it is impossible to understand or appreciate the career of Lord North without a
full comprehension of the character of the King. He has, therefore, drawn one of the best sketches of that remarkable monarch which have yet appeared. It is impossible not to admire the courage and strength of character of George III.
" England was being smothered with enemies." The English generals, according to the classic saying which, Wraxall says, emanated, not from Lord North, but from Sir Robert Walpole, were a cause of fear to their employers rather than to their enemies ; and, moreover, many of them, as in the case of Howe, bad no heart for the work in which they were engaged. Admirals such as Saunders and Keppel allowed party politics to outweigh pride in their profession, and deprecated any increase of naval strength. Intrigue, dissension, and even disorder were rife at home. Yet the steadfast courage of the King never wavered. It is, moreover, impossible to withhold a tribute of respect for a monarch who roundly rated a clergyman for eulogizing him from the pulpit, on the ground that " he went to church to hear God praised, not himself," and who was generous, or, at all events, wise enough to put his pride in his pocket and to accord the welcome of a gentleman to the first American Minister who was accredited to his Court. Nevertheless, the general impression derived from all we know of the character of the King, as depicted by Mr. Lucas and others, is the reverse of pleasing, whilst even allowing for a certain amount of prejudice on the part of Whig historians, his claims to superior statesmanship, which have been at times advanced, can certainly not be substantiated. He did, indeed, express a wish that what he regarded as the political sins of Chatham should not be visited on the heads of that statesman's innocent family, for whom be was willing to provide; but the annoyance shown when Parliament voted a public funeral and monument in Westminster Abbey for his most illustrious subject shows a petty vindictiveness carried beyond the grave, which is unquestionably despicable. Of his duplicity there can be as little doubt as of the remorseless ingratitude which he showed to many of those who had served him well both in the field and in the Council Chamber ; but it may be urged that gratitude is rarely a royal virtue, whilst the duplicity of the King was certainly no greater than that of Franklin, who has been honoured by posterity with a reputation of stern and stainless republican morality. In one capacity, to which both Sir G. Trevelyan and Mr. Lucas draw special attention, he certainly excelled. He was a consummate and very active electioneering agent. When a Windsor election was pending he wrote, "I shall order the houses I rent at Windsor to stand in the parish rates in different names of my servants, so that it will create six votes," and Mr. Lucas adds : "His Majesty canvassed diligently. In and out of the mercers' shops he trotted, muttering in his hurried way, The Queen wants a gown, wants a gown ; no Keppel, no Keppel.'" The late Lord Beaconsfield, with possibly an eye to the leading characteristics of his great rival and opponent, once expressed a doubt whether "good men" could with advantage be trusted with the management of public affairs. The remark is cynical, and should perhaps not be taken too seriously. Nevertheless, the history of England towards the close of the eighteenth century affords strong grounds for holding that good intentions, honesty of purpose, and a high standard of morality in private life cannot supply the place of intelligence and sound statesmanship. George III. was good, but obstinate. Lord North was good, but weak. The combination of the two in power went perilously near wrecking the British Empire. The second great political episode in the career of Lord North was the formation of the famous coalition in 1783. This shameless arrangement, which has probably been more severely criticized than any political combination recorded in English history, was mainly engineered by Wedderburnsubsequently Lord Loughborough—" the pert prim prater of the Northern race," who formed the subject of Churchill's biting sarcasms, and who has been immortalized by an oftquoted but singularly self-contradictory phrase struck off in the heat of political controversy by Junius. When that mysterious author said that "there was something about Wedderburn that even treachery could not trust," he sacrificed the correctness of his trope to his love of epigram; he must have forgotten that treacherous people are naturally but little inclined to place any trust in the loyalty of others. Lord Beaconsfield's dictum that "England does not love coalitions" only gives utterance to a partial truth. Everything depends upon the basis upon which the coalition rests. There have in more recent times been coalitions of political opponents which have proved durable, and which have been beneficial to the public interests. They have been based on the fact that
former opponents recognized the necessity of union in order to defend some political principle of first-rate importance, such as Free Trade or opposition to Home Rule in Ireland, as to which they were agreed. In 1783 no such principle was at stake. Love of office formed the real basis of the coalition. The death of Rockingham and the dislike generally entertained towards Shelburne afforded the opportunity for gratifying that love if only the rival claimants could bury the hatchet, and pass a sponge over the virulent vituperations with which they had but a short time previously denounced each other. A ship launched under such auspices deserved to be wrecked, and the wreck was speedy and complete. As to North himself, it appears that throughout his career it was his fate always to be dominated by some will stronger than his own. In deserting his former master, he merely exchanged one servitude for another. He became the tool of Fox, and when, after a short interval, the star of the young statesman who was to rule England for twenty-two years rose on the horizon, he sank into political insignificance. The blindness which eventually afflicted him throws a piteous and touching veil over the declining years of one who was certainly not a great statesman, but whose career and character are, on the whole, more calculated to excite sympathy and kindly comment than sharp criticism or severe condemnation. C.
Previous page
