[1768-1770 A.D.] party of the duke of Bedford, who held opinions on that subject, not exactly in consonance with that championship of our free constitution which has been claimed for him. Hillsborough had to deal with colonial subjects of the British crown, whose indignation at the Stamp Act had been revived by Charles Townshend's fatal measure for granting duties in America on glass, red and white lead, painters' colours, paper, and tea.

The king, on opening the parliament on the 8th of November, 1768, spoke in severe terms of the proceedings in North America. The spirit of faction had broken out afresh; one of the colonies had proceeded to acts of violence and of resistance to the execution of the law; the capital town of that colony was in a state of disobedience to all law and government - had adopted measures subversive of the constitution, and attended with circumstances that might manifest a disposition to throw off their dependence on Great Britain. Not a word was uttered of the cause of this disobedience. Turbulent and seditious persons were to be defeated. On the 15th of December, in the house of lords, the duke of Bedford moved an address to the king, recommending that the chief authors and instigators of the late disorders in Massachusetts should be brought to condign punishment; and beseeching his majesty that he would direct the governor of that colony "to take the most effectual methods for procuring the fullest information that can be obtained touching all treasons or misprision of treason, committed within this government since the 30th day of December last, and to transmit the same, together with the names of the persons who were most active in the commission of such offences, to one of your majesty's principal secretaries of state, in order that your majesty may issue a special commission for inquiring of, hearing and determining, the said offences within this realm, pursuant to the provisions of the statute of the 35th year of the reign of King Henry VIII, in case your majesty shall, upon receiving the said information, see sufficient ground for such a proceeding." This most arbitrary proposal was carried without a division. In the house of commons, at the opening of the session, Mr. Stanley, the seconder of the address, said that the people of the insolent town of Boston "must be treated as aliens."

We have now reached the period of Lord North's administration. On the 5th of March, 1770, on the house of commons proceeding to take into consideration the petition of the merchants of London trading to North America, the first lord of the treasury, in a temperate speech, moved the repeal of such portions of the act of 1767, as laid duties upon glass and other articles, omitting any mention of tea. "I cannot propose," he said, "any further repeal than what it was my intention to promise them. The Americans, by their subsequent behaviour, have not deserved any particular indulgence from this country." Upon this principle, many a mistaken policy has been persisted in, out of pure defiance of the excesses which that policy has provoked. "We will not be driven to repeal by any threats held out to us,' said the minister. He anticipated no larger revenue than £12,000 a year from the tea duties, but he would not give up the right to tax America which was asserted in the preamble of the act imposing the duties. The proposition of Lord North was carried by a majority of sixty-two.

When the American colonists came to know that the British parliament had repealed all the duties laid by the act of 1767, except that on tea, the spirit which had prompted the non-importation agreements was somewhat allayed. The citizens of New York determined by a large majority to resume importations from England; and many orders were despatched in July for every kind of merchandise but tea. Other provinces were indignant with

[1770-1771 A.D.]

the New Yorkers. Massachusetts maintained a position of sullen defiance. Although, for two or three years, there was in America an apparent calm a deceptive absence of violence which looked like peace the time was rapidly approaching when the exhortation of Mr. Wedderburn, in 1770, before he became Lord North's solicitor-general, would be looked upon as a prophecy: "How, sir, will it hereafter sound in the annals of the present reign, that all America - the fruit of so many years' settlement, nurtured by this country at the price of so much blood and treasure was lost to the crown of Great Britain in the reign of George III?" Whilst there is a lull in this trans-Atlantic tempest, let us revert to our domestic affairs-petty in their details, but very significant in their tendencies.

ARRESTS FOR PUBLISHING PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

In the session of parliament of 1771, there was a contest between the house of commons and the corporation of London, which was eventually productive of the highest public benefit. Although both houses held strenuously to the principle that it was the highest offence to publish their debates, the speeches of particular members were frequently printed. On the 8th of February, 1771, Colonel Onslow complained to the house of commons that two newspapers had printed a motion he had made, and a speech against it; and moreover had called him Little Cocking George. Upon his motion, the papers were delivered in and read; and the printer of the Gazetteer, R. Thompson, and the printer of the Middlesex Chronicle, J. Wheble, were ordered to attend the house. The printers could not be found to serve the orders upon them, and then the house addressed the king that he would issue his royal proclamation for their apprehension. On the 12th of March, Colonel Onslow said he was determined to bring this matter to an issue. "Today I shall only bring before the house three brace, for printing the debates." This wholesale proceeding was resisted by motions for adjournment and amendments, which protracted the debates till five o'clock in the morning, during which the house divided twenty-three times. Four of the printers obeyed the orders of the house, made their submission, and were discharged. But the affair now took a more serious turn. The sergeant-at-arms had been ordered to take J. Miller, of the London Evening Post, into custody. Wheble and Thompson had been previously arrested collusively, by some friends or servants; and being taken before Alderman Wilkes and Alderman Oliver, were discharged. Miller was apprehended by the officer of the house of commons at his house in the city; but the officer was immediately himself taken into custody by a city constable. The parties went before the lord mayor, Crosby; who was attended by Wilkes and Oliver. The lord mayor decided that the arrest of a citizen without the authority of one of the city magistrates, was a violation of its charters; and ordered Miller to be released, and the officer of the commons to give bail to answer a charge of assault.

On the 18th of March, the deputy-sergeant-at-arms was desired by the speaker to give an account of the transactions in the city. It was then moved that Brass Crosby, esquire, lord mayor, and a member of parliament, should attend in his place the next day. The lord mayor, although he was ill, came amidst the huzzas of a crowd that echoed through the house. He was permitted to sit whilst defending his conduct; and then he desired to go home, having been in his bed-chamber sixteen or seventeen days. The lord mayor was allowed to retire. Charles Fox said "there are two other criminals, Alderman Oliver and Alderman Wilkes," for which expression

[1771 A.D.] "criminals" he was gently reproved by Wedderburn, who had become solicitor-general. Alderman Oliver was then ordered to attend in his place. Wilkes had written a letter to declare that he was the lawful member for Middlesex, and would only appear in the house as a member. Mr. Calcraft writes to Lord Chatham, "The ministers avow Wilkes too dangerous to meddle with. He is to do what he pleases; we are to submit. So his majesty orders; he will have 'nothing more to do with that devil Wilkes.'" On the 25th of March the lord mayor and Alderman Oliver were in their places. In the course of the debate upon a proposal to commit them to the Tower, members came in, and reported that they had been insulted on their way to the house. The magistrates of Westminster were called, and were ordered to disperse the mob. The debate proceeded. The lord mayor, being again permitted to withdraw, said he should submit himself to whatever the house should do. The populace took the horses from his coach, and drew him in triumph to the Mansion house. After a sitting of nine hours, a motion for adjournment was rejected. When the speaker asked Alderman Oliver what he had to say in his defence, he replied, "I know the punishment I am to receive is determined upon. I have nothing to say, neither in my own defence nor in defence of the city of London. Do what you please. I defy you."

Before the motion for committing Alderman Oliver to the Tower was carried, Colonel Barré left the house, followed by Dunning, and about a dozen other members. He wrote to Chatham, "I spoke to this question about five minutes only, but I believe with great violence." To the Tower was Oliver conducted quietly at seven o'clock on the morning of the 27th. On that day the lord mayor again came to the house to attend in his place. A tremendous riot ensued. Mr. Calcraft described the scene to Lord Chatham: "The concourse of people who attended the lord mayor is incredible. They seized Lord North, broke his chariot, had got him amongst them, and but for Sir William Meredith's interfering would probably have demolished him. This, with the insults to other members, caused an adjournment of business for some hours." The justices came to the bar to declare they could not read the Riot Act.

The lord mayor and Alderman Oliver remained prisoners in the Tower, till the parliament was prorogued on the 8th of May. A prorogation suspends the power under which the privilege of committal is exercised. The house wisely resolved not to renew the perilous dispute with the city in the ensuing session. With equal wisdom the printers of the debates were no more threatened or arrested. On the 1st of May, Chatham told the peers some wholesome truths, on the subject of the publication of parliamentary proceedings. The dissatisfaction of the people "had made them uncommonly attentive to the proceedings of parliament. Hence the publication of the parliamentary debates. And where was the injury, if the members acted upon honest principles? For a public assembly to be afraid of having their deliberations published is monstrous, and speaks for itself." It was some years before these principles were completely recognised, in the conviction that a full and impartial report of the debates in parliament is one of the best securities for freedom, for a respect for the laws, and for raising up a national tribunal of public opinion in the place of the passions of demagogues and the violence of mobs. The triumph of the "miscreants" of 1771 led the way to the complete establishment of that wonderful system of reporting, which has rendered the newspaper press of this country the clearest mirror of the aggregate thought of a reflecting people.

[1772-1773 A.D.]

THE ROYAL MARRIAGE ACT (1772 A.D.)

On the 20th of February, 1772, the following royal message was brought down to both houses of parliament: "George R. his majesty being desirous, from paternal affection for his own family, and anxious concern for the future welfare of his people, and the honour and dignity of his crown, that the right of approving all marriages in the royal family (which ever has belonged to the kings of this realm as a matter of public concern) may be made effectual, recommends to both houses of parliament to take into their serious consideration whether it may not be wise and expedient to supply the defect of the laws now in being; and, by some new provision, more effectually to guard the descendants of his late majesty King George II (other than the issue of princesses who have married or may hereafter marry into foreign families) from marrying without the approbation of his majesty, his heirs, or successors, first had and obtained."

The Royal Marriage Bill was presented next day to the house of lords. It made provision that no prince or princess descended from George II - with the exception of the issue of princesses married abroad - should be capable of contracting matrimony without the previous consent of the king, his heirs, or successors. But it also provided that if any such descendant of George II, being above the age of twenty-five, should persist in a resolution to marry, the king's consent being refused, he or she might give notice to the privy council, and might at any time within twelve months after such notice contract marriage, unless both houses of parliament, before the expiration of twelve months, should expressly declare their disapprobation of such intended marriage. After continued and vehement debates in both houses, the bill became law; and it still continues in force. Its provisions appear to be imperfectly understood. It is called by Massey f "an encroachment upon the law of nature an impious and cruel measure." There is a constitutional appeal against an unjust exercise of the prerogative. Such an appeal has never been made; but it would most probably not be made in vain, if any case should arise which would justify parliament in not supporting the sovereign in the assertion of an arbitrary power.

EAST INDIAN TEA IN BOSTON HARBOUR

In 1773, the parliament turned from its long course of anti-popular contests, to look seriously at a matter of paramount national importance. The pecuniary affairs of the East India Company had fallen into great disorder. On the 2nd of March a petition was presented from the company to the house of commons, praying for the assistance of a loan of a million and a half sterling. In the previous session a select committee of the house had been appointed to inquire into the affairs of the company. The necessity for such an inquiry was strongly urged, upon financial and moral grounds. The net revenues of Bengal had decreased; the natives were distressed and discontented; the company's servants were arbitrary and oppressive. General Burgoyne, the mover of the resolution for a committee, made an eloquent appeal to the feelings of the house: "The fate of a great portion of the globe; the fate of great states, in which your own is involved; the distresses of fifteen millions of people; the rights of humanity; are involved in this question."

[The details of this affair are given in our history of India (volume xxii) and need not be repeated here. But there was one feature of the parliamentary adjustment that has peculiar significance from our present standpoint.]

[1773-1774 A.D.] The directors of the East India Company had in their warehouses seventeen million pounds of tea, for which they wanted a market. Permission was given by act of parliament to export teas belonging to the company to any of the British plantations in America, with a drawback of the duty payable in England. The colonial tax of three pence in the pound was to be paid in the American ports. Ships were freighted, and consignees appointed to sell their cargoes. Fatal boon, whose consequences no one saw.

It was Sunday, the 28th of November, 1773, when there sailed into Boston harbour the English merchant ship Dartmouth, laden with chests of tea belonging to the East India Company. The act of parliament which allowed the treasury to license vessels to export the teas of the company to the American colonies, free of duty, was the signal for popular gatherings in Boston. Town meetings were held, when strong resolutions were adopted. In this state of things the first tea-ship arrived. A committee met twice on that Sunday, and obtained a promise from Rotch, the commander of the ship, not to enter his ship till the following Tuesday.

Thirteen days after the arrival of the Dartmouth, the owner was summoned before the Boston committee, and told that his vessel and his tea must be taken back to London. It was out of his power to do so, he said. He certainly had not the power; for the passages out of the harbour were guarded by two king's ships to prevent any vessel going to sea without a licence. On the 16th, the revenue officers would have a legal authority to take possession of the Dartmouth. For three days previous there had been meetings of the Boston committee; but their journal had only this entry - "No business transacted matter of record."

On the 16th of December there was a meeting in Boston of seven thousand persons, who resolved that the tea should not be landed. The master of the Dartmouth was ordered to apply to the governor for a pass for his vessel to proceed on her return voyage to London. The governor was at his country house. Many of the leaders had adjourned to a church, to wait his answer. The night had come on when Rotch returned and announced that the governor had refused him a pass because his ship had not cleared. There was no more hesitation. Forty or fifty men, disguised as Mohawks, raised the war-whoop at the porch of the church; went on to the wharf where the three ships lay alongside; took possession of them; and deliberately emptied three hundred and forty chests of tea into the waters of the bay. It was the work of three hours. Not a sound was heard but that of breaking open the chests. The people of Boston went to their rest as if no extraordinary event had occurred.

On the 27th of January, 1774, the news of this decisive act reached the English government. On the 29th there was a great meeting of the lords of the council to consider a petition from Massachusetts for the dismissal of Hutchinson, the governor, and Oliver, the lieutenant-governor._Doctor Franklin appeared before the council as agent for Massachusetts. Franklin was treated with little respect; and Wedderburn, the solicitor-general, assailed him with a torrent of invective, at which the lords cheered and laughed. Franklin bore the assaults with perfect equanimity; but from that hour he ceased to be a mediator between Great Britain and the colonists. The council reported that the petition from Massachusetts was "groundless, vexatious, and scandalous." Two days after, Franklin was dismissed from his office of deputy postmaster general. He said to Priestley, who was present at the council, that he considered the thing for which he had been so insulted as one of the best actions of his life.