The Reign of George III. (Continued.) page 4

Chatham rose, in the deepest indignation, to answer the duke, but the Violence of his feelings overcame him; he staggered and fell in a fit or swoon, and would have been prostrated on the floor but for the assistance of some friendly hands. He lay apparently in the agonies of death. The whole house was agitated; the peers crowded round him in the greatest commotion; all except the earl of Mansfield, who beheld the fall of his ancient rival almost as unmoved, says lord Camden, "as the senseless body itself." His youngest son, John Charles Pitt, was there, and exerted himself to render all possible assistance. The insensible orator was carried in the arms of his friends to the house of Mr. Sargent, in Downing Street. By the prompt aid of a physician, he was in some degree recalled to consciousness, and within a few days was conveyed to his own dwelling at Hayes. There he lingered till the morning of May 11th, when he died in the seventieth year of his age.

In Chatham, England lost her greatest character of that period. As an orator and as a statesman he was equally eminent. The success of his plans and his administration was evidenced in the acquisition of Canada, the expulsion of the French from almost the whole of the American continent, and the rapid development of our Indian empire. He successively punished France and Spain, and raised the reputation of England to an unprecedented pitch. These benefits and glories might have been carried immensely farther, had it not been for his indomitable pride. By a more conceding and accommodating disposition, he might have acquired probably a great influence over the king, and thus have saved his country the calamities which he lived to see heaped on it by incompetent ministers. His unbending pride frequently amounted to little short of insanity, and disgusted and tired out his most zealous friends. To this unfortunate quality his persecutions by gout, and the malady resulting from it, which held him spell-bound for some years, added force and aggravated these evils, rendering him insensible to the calamities of the kingdom. But, with all his faults, he never ceased, when in any degree of health and consciousness, to maintain the most lofty principles of liberty and right. In domestic life he was as easy and amiable as he was high and severe in his public character. He was fond of the country, and spent much time in gardening. As a whole, he stands in his place in history a great and commanding figure; for a noble style of eloquence, and for grasp, vigour, and success as a statesman, almost without a rival.

On the day of Chatham's death, his friend and disciple, colonel Barre, announced the melancholy event in the house of commons, and moved that his funeral should be conducted at the public charge, and his remains be deposited in Westminster Abbey. This was seconded by Thomas Townshend, afterwards secretary of state, and lord Sydney. All parties consented, with many praises, to this suggestion; but Rigby, probably to defeat the motion by traversing it with another, hinted that he thought a public monument would be a more lasting and suitable testimony of the public regard. If this was his purpose, he must have been greatly mortified to see Dunning rise, and declare that he highly approved of both, and moved, as an amendment, that both honours should be conferred on the departed statesman. Scarcely was this motion put from the chair, when lord North, who had gone home expecting nothing of this kind, came hurrying in, and declared his satisfaction in arriving in time to give his vote for it. He regretted, he said, that the haste with which he had retraced his steps had not left him breath to express the profound respect which he entertained for the memory of the earl of Chatham. The amendment, including both motions, was carried unanimously.

Two days afterwards, lord John Cavendish introduced the subject of a further testimony of public regard for the departed. It was well known that Chatham, notwithstanding the ten thousand pounds left him by the duchess of Marlborough, notwithstanding the emoluments of his places and pensions, and the noble estate bequeathed to him by Sir William Pynsent, was still in debt. Lord John Cavendish put on the score of disinterestedness what ought probably to have been placed to the account of free living and little care of money, and called on parliament to reward the descendants of the earl for the great addition which he had made to the empire as well as to its glory. Lord North cordially assented, Burke and Fox supported the proposal, and colonel Barre drew a comparison betwixt the honours and estates conferred on Marlborough and the poor pension of three thousand pounds a-year bestowed on Chatham, omitting, however, to mention the three thousand pounds a-year previously settled on lady Chatham.

An address, founded on this resolution, was carried to the king, who faithfully kept the word he had given nearly three years before. Chatham had then, through lord North, sought to get his own pension continued to his second son, William Pitt, afterwards the celebrated minister. On that occasion, George III. had declared that the conduct of Chatham of late had totally obliterated any sense of gratitude for his former merits; that, as to any gratitude to be expected from him or his family, the whole tenor of their lives had shown them destitute of that most honourable sentiment; but that, when decrepitude or death should put an end to him as a trumpet of sedition, he would not punish the children for the father's sins, but would place the second son's name where Chatham's had been. He now consented to that; an annuity bill settled four thousand pounds a - year on the heirs of Chatham, to whom the title should descend, which received the sanction of parliament; and the commons, moreover, voted twenty thousand pounds to pay the deceased earl's debts. Both these motions passed the House of Commons unanimously; but, in the upper house, the duke of Chandos attacked the grants, and condemned severely the custom of loading the country with annuities in perpetuity. A few other lords joined him in bitter remarks on the political conduct of Chatham, and attributed to him nearly all the evils which, in truth, a set of far inferior men, in defiance of his remonstrances, had brought upon the nation. The bill was, however carried by forty-two votes to eleven, though four noble lords entered a protest against it, namely, lord chancellor Bathurst, the duke of Chandos, lord Paget, and Markharn, archbishop of York. The archbishop's protest was well known to originate in resentment for some severe strictures of Chatham's on a sermon by him, " on the ideas of savage liberty in America," which Chatham designated as embodying the principles of Atterbury and Sacheverel.

In the upper house, too, lord Shelburne moved, on the 13th of April, that all the peers should attend the funeral; but this was overruled by a majority of one - a proxy. There was an attempt by the city to have the remains of the earl, who had always been highly popular in London, deposited in St. Paul's. Their petition was supported by Burke and Dunning, but was too late, the arrangements being already made for Westminster. The funeral was but poorly attended. Few members of either house were there, except those of the opposition. Gibbon says that "the government ingeniously contrived to secure the double odium of suffering the thing to be done, and of doing it with an ill grace." Burke and Saville, Thomas Townshend, and Dunning, were pall-bearers; colonel Barre carried the banner of the barony of Chatham, supported by the marquis of Rockingham and the dukes of Richmond, Northumberland, and Manchester; William Pitt, in the place of his elder brother, who was gone to Gibraltar, was the chief mourner, followed by eight peers, as assistant mourners, amongst whom were lord Shelburne and lord Camden. The tomb of Chatham, which also contains the remains of his illustrious son, William Pitt, is in the north transept of the abbey, distinguished by the statue soon afterwards erected to his honour.

The motion of the duke of Richmond, for acknowledging the independence of America, which was interrupted by the sudden illness of Chatham, was resumed on the following day, but was lost by fifty-five votes against thirty- three. On the 7th of July the king closed the session, declaring, in his speech, his desire to preserve the peace of Europe, and charging that power by which it should be broken with all the fatal consequences of the war.

During this session, sundry matters came before parliament, which the connection of the great story of the American conflict has hitherto left untold. Burgoyne returned to England before the session closed, and demanded an opportunity of stating his own case before the house of commons. That opportunity was accorded him, and he made an able defence, throwing the blame greatly on lord George Germaine, for having tied up his hands by orders positive and unqualified in cases where latitude should be given to a general to act according to circumstances. He blamed Sir William Howe for not sending a force up the North River to Albany; and he refuted the charge that he had been at variance with generals Philips and Frazer, who served under him. On the other hand, lord George Germaine declared that Burgoyne had plenty of freedom to act according to circumstances, which no previous plans could enable him to foresee; that the fault of defeat lay entirely with himself; that he had had a fine and efficient army put into his hands - in fact, nearly the whole force that he himself had demanded; that he should not have given up his communication with the lakes whilst he had no certainty of being met by an army from New York; and that he had raised the spirit of the Americans by sending too small a force against Bennington, and had committed the capital mistake of selecting for this expedition, which required promptness and speed, the slowest of all foreigners, the Germans.

The fact was, that government had made a fatal blunder in setting aside Sir Guy Carleton, who knew the country and the people with whom he had to deal, for Burgoyne, who had been chosen merely as many men, both civil and military, are chosen - not for any particular fitness, but because they are violent in opposition, and it is desirable to silence them. The king had shown Burgoyne the most unqualified resentment on his return; he refused to admit him at court, and told those about him to ask him why he had abandoned his army? and why he had left his officers and men behind him? Burgoyne, seeing that he should obtain no advantage from parliament, vehemently demanded a court-martial. " I provoke a trial!" he cried; " give me inquiry! I put the interests that hang most emphatically by the heart-strings of man - fortune - my honour - my head - I had almost said, my salvation - upon the test!"

Lord George Germaine was excited, bitter, and personal, as usual. He thought a court-martial a proper tribunal. He said general Burgoyne had appealed to the testimony of M. St. Luc, a Canadian officer; and what was the testimony of M. St. Luc to himself, lord George? That Burgoyne was a brave man, but as dull and heavy as a German. Mr. Temple Luttrell sarcastically alluded to the court-martial which tried lord George for skulking at Minden; and lord George flew into a rage, and challenged Luttrell, but so openly, that all mishief was prevented by the serjeant-at- arms, and so this matter ended.

On the 6th of May Burke had brought forward a measure for the benefit of his long-oppressed country. It was, that Ireland should enjoy the privilege of exporting its own manufactures, woollen cloths and woollens excepted, and of importing from the coast of Africa and other foreign settlements all goods that they wanted, except indigo and tobacco. They were to have the additional privilege of sending to England, duty-free, cotton yarns, Irish sailcloth, and cordage. Parliament, for once, looked on these demands with favour. They recollected that the Americans had endeavoured to excite disaffection amongst the Irish, by reference to the unjust restrictions on their commerce by the selfishness of England, and they felt the loss of the American trade, and were willing to encourage commerce in some other direction. Lord Nugent co-operated with Burke in this endeavour. But the lynx-eyed avarice of the English merchants was instantly up in arms. During the Easter recess, a host of petitions was got up against this just concession. The city of Bristol, which was represented by Burke, threatened to dismiss him at the next election, if he persisted in this attempt to extend commercial justice to Ireland; but Burke told them that he must leave that to them; for himself, he must advocate free trade, which, if they once tried it, they would find far more advantageous than monopoly. They kept their word, and threw him out for his independence. At the same time, the English merchants, as they had always done before by Ireland, triumphed to a great extent. They demanded to be heard in committee by counsel, and the bills were shorn down to the least possible degree of benefit.

During the discussion of this question, Sir George Saville brought forward another, of vital importance to the Irish, as well as to a considerable body in England. This was a bill for relieving catholics, by repealing the penalties and disabilities imposed by the 10th and 11th of King William III. The hardships sought to be removed were these: - The prohibition of catholic priests or Jesuits teaching their own doctrines in their own churches, such an act being high treason in natives and felony in foreigners; the forfeitures by popish heirs of their property, who received their education abroad, in such cases the estates going to the nearest Protestant heir; the power given to a protestant to take the estate of his father, or next kinsman, who was a catholic, during his lifetime; and the debarring all catholics from acquiring legal property by any other means than descent. Stirring memorials were presented to the king from catholics, declaring that they held no principles incompatible with the duties of good citizens; that their conduct, during a long course of restriction and unpopularity, had been peaceable and loyal, whilst the severity of government had not in any degree diminished their reverence for it, or their attachment to the constitution. Dunning declared the restrictions a disgrace to humanity, and perfectly useless, as they were never enforced; but Sir George Saville said that was not really the fact, for that he himself knew catholics who lived in daily terror of informers and of the infliction of the law. Thurlow, still attorney-general, but about to ascend the woolsack, promptly supported the bill; and Henry Dundas, the lord-advocate of Scotland, lamented that it would afford no relief to his own country. These acts did not affect Scotland, as they had been passed before the union; but Scotland had a similar act passed by its own parliament, and he promised to move for the repeal of this Scottish act in the next session. In the commons there was an almost total unanimity on the subject; and in the lords, the bishop of Peterborough was nearly the only person who strongly opposed it. He contended, that if, as it was contended, these acts were a dead letter, why disturb the dead? But he declared that there was a danger to the Anglican church in repealing the law which strengthened it, by continuing to protestants rather than catholics the successions to large properties or fees. The bill passed, for it was deemed a good opportunity to tranquilise the minds of the people of Ireland.