While the great monarchies of Western Europe were struggling for preëminence, and were developing resources greater than had ever before been exhibited since the fall of the Roman empire, that great power which had alarmed and astonished Christendom in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries,Saracenic Empire.began to show the signs of weakness and decay. Nothing, in the history of society, is more marvellous than the rise of Mohammedan kingdoms. The victories of the Saracens and Turks were rapid and complete; and in the tenth century, they were the most successful warriors on the globe, and threatened to subvert the world. They had planted the standard of the Prophet on the walls of Eastern capitals, and had extended their conquests to India on the east, and to Spain on the west. Powerful Mohammedan states had arisen in Asia, Africa, and Europe, and the Crusaders alone arrested the progress of these triumphant armies. The enthusiasm which the doctrines of Mohammed had kindled, cannot easily be explained; but it was fresh, impetuous, and self-sacrificing. Successive armies of Mohammedan invaders overwhelmed the ancient realms of civilization, and reduced the people whom they conquered and converted to a despotic yoke. But success enervated the victorious conquerors of the East, the empire of the Caliphs was broken up, and great changes took place even in those lands where the doctrines of the Koran prevailed. Mohammed perpetuated a religion, but not an empire. Different Saracenic chieftains revolted from the "Father of the Faithful," and established separate kingdoms, or viceroyalties, nearly independent of the acknowledged successors of Mohammed. The Saracenic empire was early dismembered, and the sultans of Egypt, Spain, and Syria contested for preëminence.
But a new power arose on the ruins of the Saracen empire, and became the enthusiastic defenders of the religion of Islam. TheRise of the Turks.Turks were an obscure tribe of barbarians when Bagdad was the seat of a powerful monarchy. Their origin has been traced to the wilds of Scythia; but they early deserted their native forests in search of more fruitful regions. When Apulia and Sicily were subdued by the Norman pirates, a swarm of these Scythian shepherds settled in Armenia, probably in the ninth century, and, by their valor and simplicity, soon became a powerful tribe. Not long after they were settled in their new abode, the Sultan of Persia invoked their aid to assist him in his wars against the Caliph of Bagdad, his great rival. The Turks complied with his request, and their arms were successful. The sultan then refused to part with such useful auxiliaries, and moreover, fearing their strength, designed to employ them in his wars against the Hindoos, and to shut them up in the centre of his dominions. The Turkmans rebelled, withdrew into a mountainous part of the country, became robbers, and devastated the adjacent countries. The band of robbers gradually swelled into a powerful army, gained a great victory over the troops of the Sultan Mohammed, and placed their chieftain upon the Persian throne, (1038.) According to Gibbon, the new monarch was chosen by lot, and Seljuk had the fortune to win the prize of conquest, and became the founder of the dynasty of the Shepherd kings. During the reign of his grandson Togrul, the ancient Persian princes were expelled, and the Turks embraced the religion of the conquered. In 1055, the Turkish sultan delivered the Caliph of Bagdad from the arms of the Caliph of Egypt, who disputed with him the title ofCommander of the Faithful. For this service he was magnificently rewarded by the grateful successor of the Prophet, who, at that time, banqueted in his palace at Bagdad—a venerable phantom of power. The victorious sultan was publicly commissioned as lieutenant of the caliph, and he was virtually seated on the throne of the Abbassides. Shortly after, the Turkish conqueror invaded the falling empire of the Greeks, and its Asiatic provinces were irretrievably lost. In the latter part of the eleventh century, the Turkish power was established in Asia Minor, and Jerusalem itself had fallen into the hands of the sultan. He exacted two pieces of gold from the Christian pilgrim, and treated him, moreover, with greater cruelty than the Saracens had ever exercised. Theextortion and oppression of the Turkish masters of the Sacred City led to the Crusades and the final possession of Western Asia by the followers of the Prophet. The Turkish power constantly increased with the decline of the Saracenic and Greek empires, but the Seljukian dynasty, like that of Abbassides at Bagdad, at last run out, and Othman, a soldier of fortune, became sultan of the Turks. He is regarded as the founder of the Ottoman empire, and under his reign, from 1299 to 1326, the Moslems made rapid strides in the progress of aggrandizement.
Orkham, his son, instituted the force of the Janizaries, completed theTurkish Conquerors.conquest of Bithynia, and laid the foundation of Turkish power in Europe. Under his successor, AmurathI., Adrianople became the capital of the Ottoman empire, and the rival of Constantinople. Bajazet succeeded Amurath, and his conquests extended from the Euphrates to the Danube. In 1396, he defeated, at Nicopolis, a confederate army of one hundred thousand Christians; and, in the intoxication of victory, declared that he would feed his horse with a bushel of oats on the altar of St. Peter, at Rome. Had it not been for the victories of Tamerlane, Constantinople, which contained within its walls the feeble fragments of a great empire, would also have fallen into his hands. He was unsuccessful in his war with the great conqueror of Asia, and was defeated at the battle of Angora, (1402,) and taken captive, and carried to Samarcand, by Tamerlane, in an iron cage.
The great Bajazet died in captivity, and MohammedI.succeeded to his throne. He restored, on a firmer basis, the fabric of the Ottoman monarchy, and devoted himself to the arts of peace. His successor, AmurathII., continued hostilities with the Greeks, and laid siege to Constantinople. But this magnificent city, the last monument of Roman greatness, resisted the Turkish arms only for a while. In 1453, it fell before an irresistible force of three hundred thousand men, supported by a fleet of three hundred sail. The Emperor Constantine succeeded in maintaining a siege of fifty-three days; and the religion and empire of the Christians were trodden to the dust by the Moslem conquerors. The city was sacked, the people were enslaved, and the Church of St. Sophia was despoiled of the oblations of ages, and converted into a Mohammedan mosque. One hundred and twenty thousandmanuscripts perished in the sack of Constantinople, and the palaces and treasure of the Greeks were transferred to semi-barbarians.
From that time, the Byzantine capital became the seat of the Ottoman empire; and, for more than two centuries, Turkish armies excited the fears and disturbed the peace of the world.Progress of the Turks.They gradually subdued and annexed Macedonia, the Peloponnesus, Epirus, Bulgaria, Servia, Bosnia, Armenia, Cyprus, Syria, Egypt, India, Tunis, Algiers, Media, Mesopotamia, and a part of Hungary, to the dominions of the sultan. In the sixteenth century, the Ottoman empire was the most powerful in the world. Nor should we be surprised, in view of the great success of the Turks, when we remember their singular bravery, their absorbing ambition, their almost incredible obedience to the commands of the sultan, and the unity which pervaded the national councils. They also fought to extend their religion, to which they were blind devotees. After the capture of Constantinople, a succession of great princes sat on the most absolute throne known in modern times; men disgraced by many crimes, but still singularly adapted to extend their dominion.
The progress of the Turks justly alarmed the Emperor CharlesV., and he exerted all his energies to unite the German princes against them, but unsuccessfully. The Sultan Solyman, called theMagnificent, maintained his supremacy over Transylvania, Wallachia, and Moldavia, ravaged Hungary, wrested Rhodes from the Knights of St. John, conquered the whole of Arabia, and attacked the Portuguese dominion in India. He raised the Turkish empire to the highest pitch of its greatness, and died while besieging Sigeth, as he was completing the conquest of Hungary. His empire was one vast camp, and his decrees were dated from the imperial stirrup. The iron sceptre which he and his successors wielded was imbrued in blood; and discipline alone was the politics of his soldiers, and rapine their resources.
SelimII.succeeded Solyman, and set the ruinous example of not going himself to the wars, and of carrying them on by his lieutenants. His son, MuradIII., penetrated into Russia and Poland, and made war on the Emperor of Germany. MohammedIII., who died in 1604, murdered all his brothers, nineteen in number, and executed his own son. It was usual, when an emperormounted the throne, for him to put to death his brothers and nephews. Indeed, the characters of the sultans were marked by unusual ferocity and jealousy, and they were unscrupulous in the means they took to advance their power. The world has never seen more suspicious tyrants; and it ever must excite our wonder that they were so unhesitatingly obeyed. But they were, however, sometimes dethroned by the Janizaries, who constituted a sort of imperial guard. OsmanII., fearing their power, and disgusted with their degeneracy, resolved to destroy them, as dangerous to the state. But his design was discovered, and he himself lost his life, (1622.) Several monsters of tyranny and iniquity succeeded him, whose reigns were disgraced by every excess of debauchery and cruelty. Their subjects, however, had not, as yet, lost vigor, temperance, and ambition, and still continued to furnish troops unexampled for discipline and bravery, and bent on conquest and dominion.
The Turkish power received no great checks until the reign of MohammedIV., during which Sobieski defeated an immense army, which had laid siege to Vienna. By the peace of Carlovitz, in 1699, Transylvania was ceded to the Emperor of Germany, and a barrier was raised against Mohammedan invasion.
The Russians, from the time of Peter the Great, looked with great jealousy on the power of the sultan, and several wars were the result. No Russian sovereign desired the humiliation of the Porte more than CatharineII.A bloody contest ensued, signalized by the victories of Galitzin, Suwarrow, Romanzoff, and Orloff, by which Turkey became a second class power, no longer feared by the European states.
From the peace of Carlovitz, theDecline of Turkish Power.decline of the Ottoman empire has been gradual, but marked, owing to the indifference of the Turks to all modern improvements, and a sluggish, conservative policy, hostile to progress, and sceptical of civilization. The Turks have ever been bigoted Mohammedans, and hostile to European influences. The Oriental dress has been preserved in Constantinople, and all the manners and customs of the people are similar to what they were in Asia several centuries ago.
One of the peculiarities of the Turkish government, in the most flourishing period of its history, was theTurkish Institutions.institution of the Janizaries—a guard of soldiers, to whom was intrusted the guardianshipof the sultan, and the protection of his capital. When warlike and able princes were seated on the throne, this institution proved a great support to the government; but when the reins were held by effeminate princes, the Janizaries, like the Prætorian Guards of Rome, acquired an undue ascendency, and even deposed the monarchs whom they were bound to obey. They were insolent, extortionate, and extravagant, and became a great burden to the state. At first they were brave and resolute; but they gradually lost their skill and their courage, were uniformly beaten in the later wars with the Russians, and retained nothing of the soldier but the name. MahmoudII., in our own time, succeeded in dissolving this dangerous body, and in introducing European tactics into his army.
The Turkish institutions haveTurkish Character.reference chiefly to the military character of the nation. All Mussulmans, in the eye of the law, are soldiers, to whom the extension of the empire and the propagation of their faith were the avowed objects of warfare. They may be regarded, wherever they have conquered, as military colonists, exercising great tyranny, and treating all vanquished subjects with contempt. The government has ever been a pure despotism, and both the executive and legislative authorities have been vested in the sultan. He is the sole fountain of honor; for, in Turkey, birth confers no privilege. His actions are regarded as prescribed by an inevitable fate, and his subjects suffer with resignation. The evils of despotism are aggravated by the ignorance and effeminacy of those to whom power is intrusted, although the grand vizier, who is the prime minister of the empire, is generally a man of great experience and talent. All the laws of the country are founded upon the precepts of the Koran, the example of Mohammed, the precepts of the four first caliphs, and the decision of learned doctors upon disputed cases. Justice is administered promptly, but without much regard to equity or mercy; and the course of the grand vizier is generally marked with blood. The character of the people partakes of the nature of their government, religion, and climate. They are arrogant, ignorant, and austere; passing from devotion to obscenity; fastidiously abstemious in some things, and grossly sensual in others. They have cherished the virtues of hospitality, and are fond of conversationbut their domestic life is spent in voluptuous idleness, and is dull and insipid compared with that of Europeans. But the Turks have degenerated. In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, they were simple, brave, and religious. They founded an immense empire on the ruins of Asiatic monarchies, and filled the world with the terror of their arms. For two hundred years their power has been retrograding, and there is much reason now to believe that a total eclipse of their glory is soon to take place.
References.—See Knolle's History of Turkey. Eton's Survey of the Turkish Empire. Upham's History of the Ottoman Empire. Encyclopædia Britannica. Heeren's Modern History. Madden's Travels in Turkey. Russell's Modern Europe. Life of CatharineII.(Back to Contents)
Great subjects were discussed in England, and great events happened in America, during the latter years of the reigns of FredericII., CatharineII., and Maria Theresa. These now demand attention.
GeorgeIII.ascended the throne of Great Britain at a period of unparalleled prosperity, when the English arms wereMilitary Successes in America.victorious in all parts of the world, and when commerce and the arts had greatly enriched his country and strengthened its political importance. By the peace of Paris, (1763,) the dominions of GeorgeIII.were enlarged, and the country over which he reigned was the most powerful in Europe.
Mr. George Grenville succeeded the Earl of Bute as the prime minister of the king, and he was chiefly assisted by the Earls of Egremont and Halifax. His administration was signalized by the prosecution of Wilkes, and by schemes for the taxation of the American colonies.
Mr. Wilkes was a member of parliament, but a man of ruined fortunes and profligate morals. As his circumstances were desperate, he applied to the ministry for some post of emolument; but his application was rejected. Failure enraged him, and he swore revenge, and resolved to libel the ministers, under the pretext of exercising the liberty of the press. He was editor of the North Briton, a periodical publication of some talent, but more bitterness. In the forty-fifth number, he assailed the king, charging him with a direct falsehood. The charge should have been dismissed with contempt; for it was against the dignity of the government to refute an infamous slander. But, in an evil hour, it was thought expedient to vindicate the honor of the sovereign; and a warrant was therefore issued against the editor, publisher, and printer of the publication. The officers of the law entered Wilkes's houselate one evening, seized his papers, and committed him to the Tower. He sued out a writ of habeas corpus, in consequence of which he was brought up to Westminster Hall. Being a member of parliament, and a man of considerable abilities and influence, his case attracted attention. The judges decided that his arrest was illegal, since a member of parliament could not be imprisoned except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace. He had not committed any of these crimes, for a libel had only atendencyto disturb the peace. Still, had he been a private person, his imprisonment would have been legal; but being unconstitutional, he was discharged. Lord Chief Justice Pratt gained great popularity by his charge in favor of the liberation of Wilkes, and ever nobly defended constitutional liberty. He is better known as Lord Camden, the able lord chancellor and statesman during a succeeding administration, and one of the greatest lawyers England has produced, ranking with Lord Hardwicke, Lord Ellenborough, and Lord Eldon.
After the discharge of Wilkes, the attorney-general was then ordered to commence a stateProsecution of Wilkes.prosecution, and he was arraigned at the bar of the House of Commons. It was voted, by a great majority, that the forty-fifth number of the North Briton was a scandalous and seditious libel, and tending to excite traitorous insurrections. It was further voted that the paper should be burned by the common hangman. Wilkes then complained to the House of a breach of privilege, which complaint, being regular, was considered. But the Commons decided that the privilege of parliament does not extend to a libel, which resolution was against the decision of the Court of Common Pleas, and the precedents upon record in their own journals. However scandalous and vulgar the vituperation of Wilkes, and especially disgraceful in a member of parliament, still his prosecution was an attack on the constitution. Wilkes was arrested on what is called ageneral warrant, which, if often resorted to, would be fatal to the liberties of the people. Many, who strongly disliked the libeller, still defended him in this instance, among whom were Pitt, Beckford, Legge, Yorke, and Sir George Saville. But party spirit and detestation of Wilkes triumphed over the constitution, and the liberties of members of parliament were abridged even by themselves. But Wilkes wasnot discouraged, and immediately brought an action, in Westminster Hall, against the Earl of Halifax, the secretary of state, for seizing his papers, and, after a hearing of fifteen hours, before Lord Chief Justice Pratt and a special jury, obtained a verdict in his favor of one thousand pounds damages and costs.
While the Commons were prosecuting Wilkes for a libel, the Lords also continued the prosecution. Wilkes, in conjunction with Potter, a dissipated son of Archbishop Potter, during some of their bacchanalian revels, had written a blasphemous and obscene poem, after the model of Pope's Essay on Man, calledAn Essay on Woman. The satire was not published, but a few copies of it were printed privately for the authors. Lord Sandwich had contrived to secure a copy of it, and read it before the House; and the Lords, indignant and disgusted, voted an address to the king to institute a prosecution against the author. The Lords, by so doing, departed from the dignity of their order, and their ordinary functions, and their persecution served to strengthen, instead of weaken, the cause of Wilkes.
Associated with him, in his writings and his revels, was the poetChurchill.Churchill, a clergyman of the Establishment, but as open a contemner of decency as Wilkes himself. For some years, his poetry had proved as bad as his sermons, his time being spent in low dissipation. An ill-natured criticism on his writings called forth his energies, and he started, all at once, a giant in numbers, with all the fire of Dryden and all the harmony of Pope. Imagination, wit, strength, and sense, were crowded into his compositions; but he was careless of both matter and manner, and wrote just what came in his way. "This bacchanalian priest," says Horace Walpole, "now mouthing patriotism, and now venting libertinism, the scourge of bad men, and scarce better than the worst, debauching wives, and protecting his gown by the weight of his fist, engaged with Wilkes in his war on the Scots, and set himself up as the Hercules that was to cleanse the state and punish its oppressors. And true it is, the storm that saved us was raised in taverns and night-cellars; so much more effectual were the orgies of Churchill and Wilkes than the dagger of Cato and Brutus. Earl Temple joined them in mischief and dissipation, and whispered where they might find torches, though hetook care never to be seen to light one himself. This triumvirate has even made me reflect that nations are most commonly saved by the worst men in them. The virtuous are too scrupulous to go the lengths which are necessary to rouse the people against their tyrants."
The ferment created by the prosecution of Wilkes led to the resignation of Mr. Grenville, in 1765, and the Marquis of Rockingham succeeded him as head of the administration. He continued, however, the prosecution. He retained his place but a few months, and was succeeded by theGrafton's Administration.Duke of Grafton, the object of such virulent invective in the Letters of Junius, a work without elevation of sentiment, without any appeal to generous principle, without recognition of the eternal laws of justice, and without truthfulness, and yet a work which produced a great sensation, and is to this day regarded as a masterpiece of savage and unscrupulous sarcasm. The Duke of Grafton had the same views as his predecessor respecting Wilkes, who had the audacity, notwithstanding the sentence of outlawry which had been passed against him, to return from Paris, to which he had, for a time, retired, and to appear publicly at Guildhall, and offer himself as a candidate for the city of London. He was contemptuously rejected, but succeeded in being elected as member for Middlesex county.
Mr. Wilkes, however, recognizing the outlawry that had been passed against him, surrendered himself to the jurisdiction of the Court of the King's Bench, which was then presided over by Lord Mansfield. This great lawyer and jurist confirmed the verdicts against him, and sentenced him to pay a fine of one thousand pounds, to suffer two years' imprisonment, and to find security for good behavior for seven years. This sentence was odious and severe, and the more unjustifiable in view of the arbitrary and unprecedented alteration of the records on the very night preceding the trial.
The multitude, enraged, rescued theirPopularity of Wilkes.idol from the officers of the law, as they were conducting him to prison, and carried him with triumph through the city; but, through his entreaties, they were prevailed upon to abstain from further acts of outrage. Mr. Wilkes again surrendered himself, and was confined in prison.When the Commons met, Wilkes was again expelled, in order to satisfy the vengeance of the court. But the electors of Middlesex again returned him to parliament, and the Commons voted that, being once expelled, he was incapable of sitting, even if elected, in the same parliament. The electors of Middlesex, equally determined with the Commons, chose him, for a third time, their representative; and the election, for the third time, was declared void by the commons. In order to terminate the contest, Colonel Lutterell, a member of the House, vacated his seat, and offered himself a candidate for Middlesex. He received two hundred and ninety-six votes, and Wilkes twelve hundred and forty-three, but Lutterell was declared duly elected by the Commons, and took his seat for Middlesex.
This decision threw the whole nation into a ferment, and was plainly an outrage on the freedom of elections; and it was so considered by some of the most eminent men in England, even by those who despised the character of Wilkes. Lord Chatham, from his seat, declared "that the laws were despised, trampled upon, destroyed; those laws which had been made by the stern virtues of our ancestors, those iron barons of old, to whose spirit in the hour of contest, and to whose fortitude in the triumph of victory, the silken barons of this day owe all their honors and security."
Mr. Wilkes subsequently triumphed; the Commons grew weary of a contest which brought no advantage and much ignominy, and the prosecution was dropped; but not until the subject of it had been made Lord Mayor of London. From 1768 to 1772, he was the sole unrivalled political idol of the people, who lavished on him all in their power to bestow. They subscribed twenty thousand pounds for the payment of his debts, besides gifts of plate, wine, and household goods. Every wall bore his name and every window his picture. In china, bronze, or marble, he stood upon the chimney-pieces of half the houses in London, and he swung from the sign-board of every village, and every great road in the environs of the metropolis. In 1770 he was discharged from his imprisonment, in 1771 was permitted to take his seat, and elected mayor. From 1776, his popularity declined, and he became involved in pecuniary difficulties. He, however,emerged from them, and enjoyed a quiet office until his death (1797.) He was a patriot from accident, and not from principle, and corrupt in his morals; but he was a gentleman of elegant manners and cultivated taste. He was the most popular political character ever known in England; and his name, at one time, was sufficient to blow up the flames of sedition, and excite the lower orders to acts of violence bordering on madness.
During his prosecution, important events occurred, of greater moment to the world. The disputes about theTaxation of the Colonies.taxation of America led to the establishment of a new republic, whose extent and grandeur have never been equalled, and whose future greatness cannot well be exaggerated.
These disputes commenced during the administration of George Grenville. The proposal to tax the American colonies had been before proposed to Sir Robert Walpole, but this prudent and sagacious minister dared not run the risk. Mr. Grenville was not, however, daunted by the difficulties and dangers which the more able Walpole regarded. In order to lighten the burden which resulted from the ruinous wars of Pitt, the minister proposed to raise a revenue from the colonies. The project pleased the house, and the Stamp Duties were imposed. It is true that the tax was a light one, and was so regarded by Mr. Grenville; but he intended it as a precedent; he was resolved to raise a revenue from the colonies sufficiently great to lighten the public burden. He regarded the colonists as subjects of the King of Great Britain, in every sense of the word; and, since they received protection from the government, they were bound to contribute to its support.
But the colonists, now scattered along the coast from Maine to Georgia, tookIndignation of the Colonies.other views. They maintained that, though subject in some degree to English legislation, they could not be taxed, any more than other subjects of Great Britain, without their consent. They were willing to be ruled in accordance with those royal charters which had, at different times, been given them. They were even willing to assist the mother country, which they loved and revered, and with which were connected their brightest and most cherished associations, in expelling its enemies from adjoining territories, and to fight battles in its defence. They were willingto receive the literature, the religion, the fashions, and the opinions of their brethren in England. But they looked upon the soil which they cultivated in the wilderness with so many difficulties, hardships, and dangers, as their own, and believed that they were bound to raise taxes only to defend the soil, and promote good government, religion, and morality in their midst. But they could not understand why they were bound to pay taxes to support English wars on the continent of Europe. It was for their children, and for the sacred privilege of religious liberty, that they had originally left the mother country. It was only for themselves and their children that they felt bound to labor. They sought no political influence in England. They did not wish to control elections, or regulate the finances, or interfere with the projects of military aggrandizement. They were not represented in the English parliament, and they composed, politically speaking, no part of the English nation. Great, therefore, was their indignation, when they learned that the English government was interfering with their chartered rights, and designed to raise a revenue from them to lighten taxes at home, merely to support the government in foolish wars. If they could be taxed, without their consent, in any thing, they could be taxed without limit; and they would be in danger of becoming mere slaves of the mother country, and be bound to labor for English aggrandizement. On one point they insisted with peculiar earnestness—that taxation, in a free country, without a representation of interests in parliament, was an outrage. It was on account of this arbitrary taxation that CharlesI.lost his crown, and the second revolution was effected, which placed the house of Hanover on the throne. The colonies felt that, if the subjects of the king at home were justified in resisting unlawful taxes, they surely, on another continent, and without a representation, had a right to do so also; that, if they were to be taxed without their consent, they would be in a worse condition than even the people of Ireland; would be in the condition of a conquered people, without the protection which even a conquered country enjoyed. Hence they remonstrated, and prepared themselves for resistance.
The English government was so blinded as not to perceive or feel the force of the reasoning of the colonists, and obstinatelyresolved to resort to measures which, with a free and spirited people, must necessarily lead to violence and strife. The House of Commons would not even hear the reports of the colonial agents, but proceeded, with strange infatuation and obstinate bigotry, to impose theThe Stamp Act.Stamp Act, (1765.) There were some, however, who perceived its folly and injustice. General Conway protested against the assumed right of the government, and Colonel Barré, a speaker of great eminence, exclaimed, in reply to the speech of Charles Townshend, who styled the colonies "children planted by our care, and nourished by our indulgence,"—"They planted by your care!—No! your oppressions planted them in America; they fled from your tyranny to a then uncultivated wilderness, exposed to all the hardships to which human nature is liable! They nourished by your indulgence!—No! they grew by your neglect; yourcareof them was displayed in sending persons to govern them who were the deputies of deputies of ministers—men whose behavior, on many occasions, has caused the blood of those sons of liberty to recoil within them; men who have been promoted to the highest seats of justice in a foreign country, in order to escape being brought to the bar of a court of justice in their own." Mr. Pitt opposed the fatal policy of Grenville with singular eloquence; by arguments which went beyond acts of parliament; by an appeal to the natural reason; and by recognition of the great, inalienable principles of liberty. He maintained that the House hadno rightto lay an internal tax upon America,that country not being represented. Burke, too, then a new speaker, raised his voice against the folly and injustice of taxing the colonies; but it was in vain. The commons were bent on imposing the Stamp Act.
But the passage of this act created great disturbances in America, and was every where regarded as the beginning of great calamities. Throughout the colonies there was a general combination to resist the stamp duty; and it was resolved to purchase no English manufactures, and to prevent the adoption of stamped paper.
Such violent and unexpected opposition embarrassed the English ministry; which, in addition to the difficulties attending the prosecution of Wilkes, led to the retirement of Grenville, who wassucceeded by the Marquis of Rockingham. During his short administration, the Stamp Act was repealed, although the Commons still insisted on their right to tax America. The joy which this repeal created in the colonies was unbounded; and the speech of Pitt, who proposed the repeal, and defended it with unprecedented eloquence, was every where read with enthusiasm, and served to strengthen the conviction, among the leading men in the colonies, that their cause was right. Lord Rockingham did not long remain at the head of the government, and was succeeded by the Duke of Grafton; although Mr. Pitt, recently created Earl of Chatham, was virtually the prime minister. Lord Rockingham retired from office with a high character for pure and disinterested patriotism, and without securing place, pension, or reversion, to himself or to any of his adherents.
The elevation ofLord Chatham.Lord Chatham to the peerage destroyed his popularity and weakened his power. No man ever made a greater mistake than he did in consenting to an apparent elevation. He had long been known and designated as theGreat Commoner. The people were proud of him and, as a commoner, he could have ruled the nation, in spite of all opposition. No other man could have averted the national calamities. But, as a peer, he no longer belonged to the people, and the people lost confidence in him, and abandoned him. What he gained in dignity he lost in power and popularity. The people now compared him with Lord Bath, and he became the object of universal calumny.
And Chatham felt the change which had taken place in the nation. He had ever loved and courted popularity, and that was the source of his power. He now lost his spirits, and interested himself but little in public affairs. He relapsed into a state of indolence and apathy. He remained only the shadow of a mighty name; and, sequestered in the groves of his family residence, ceased to be mentioned by the public. He became melancholy, nervous, and unfit for business. Nor could he be induced to attend a cabinet council, even on the most pressing occasions. He pretended to be ill, and would not hold conference with his colleagues. Nor did he have the influence with the king which he had a right to expect. Being no longer beloved by the people, he was no longer feared by the king. He was likeSamson when deprived of his locks—without strength; for his strength lay in the confidence and affections of the nation. He opposed his colleagues in their resolution to impose new taxes on America, but his counsels were disregarded.
These taxes were in the shape of duties on glass, paper, lead, and painters' colors, from which no considerable revenue could be gained, and much discontent would inevitably result. When the news of this new taxation reached the colonies, it destroyed all the cheerfulness which the repeal of the Stamp Act had caused. Sullenness and gloom returned. Trust in parliament was diminished. New combinations of opposition were organized, and the newspapers teemed with invective.
In the midst of these disturbances, Lord Chatham resigned the Privy Seal, the office he had selected, and retired from the administration, (1768.)
In 1770, the Duke of Grafton also resigned his office as first lord of the treasury, chiefly in consequence of the increasing difficulties with America; andAdministration of Lord North.Lord North, who had been two years chancellor of the exchequer, took his place. He was an amiable and accomplished nobleman, and had many personal friends, and few personal enemies; but he was unfit to manage the helm of state in the approaching storm.
It was his misfortune to be minister in the most unsettled and revolutionary times, and to misunderstand not merely the spirit of the age, but the character and circumstances of the American colonies. GeorgeIII., with singular obstinacy and blindness, sustained the minister against all opposition; and under his administration the American war was carried on, which ended so disastrously to the mother country.
As this great and eventful war will be the subject of the next chapter, the remaining events of interest, connected with the domestic history of England, will be first presented.
The most important of these were the discontents of the Irish.
As early as 1762, associations of the peasantry were formed with a view to political reforms and changes, and these popular demonstrations of the discontented have ever since marked the history of the Irish nation—ever poor, ever oppressed, ever on the eve of rebellion.
The first circumstance, however, after the accession of GeorgeIII., which claims particular notice, was the passing of the Octennial Bill, in 1788. TheFunctions of the Parliament.Irish parliament, unlike the English, continued in existence during the life of the sovereign. In 1761, an attempt had been made by the patriotic party to limit its duration, and to place it upon the same footing as the parliament of England; but this did not succeed. Lord Townshend, at this period, was lord lieutenant, and it was the great object of his government to break the power of the Irish aristocracy, and to take out of their hands the distribution of pensions and places, which hitherto had, from motives of policy, been allowed them. He succeeded in his object, though by unjustifiable means, and the British government became the source of all honor and emolument. During his administration, some disturbances broke out in Ulster, in consequence of the system which then prevailed of letting land on fines. As a great majority of the peasantry and small farmers were unable to pay these fines, and were consequently deprived of their farms, they became desperate, and committed violent outrages on those who had taken their lands. Government was obliged to resort to military force, and many distressed people were driven to America for subsistence. To Ireland there appeared no chance of breaking the thraldom which England in other respects also exercised, when the American war broke out. This immediately changed the language and current of the British government in reference to Ireland; proposals were made favorable to Irish commerce; and some penal statutes against Catholics were annulled. Still the patriots of Ireland aimed at much greater privileges than had as yet been granted, and the means to secure these were apparent. England had drawn from Ireland nearly all the regular forces, in order to send them to America, and the sea-coast of Ireland was exposed to invasion. In consequence of the defenceless state of the country, the inhabitants of the town of Belfast, in 1779, entered into armed associations to defend themselves in case of necessity. This gave rise to a system of volunteers, which soon was extended over the island. The Irish now began to feel their strength; and even Lord North admitted, in the House of Commons, the necessity of granting to them still greater privileges, and carried a bill through parliament, whichremoved some grievous commercial restrictions. But the Irish looked to greater objects, and especially since Lord North, in order to carry his bill, represented it as a boon resumable at pleasure, rather than as a right to which the Irish were properly entitled. This bill, therefore, instead of quieting the patriots, led to a desire for an independent parliament of their own. A union was formed of volunteers to secure this end, not composed of the ignorant peasantry, but of all classes, at the head of which was the Duke of Leinster himself. In 1781, this association of volunteers had a force of fifty thousand disciplined men; and it moreover formed committees of correspondence, which naturally alarmed the British government.
These and other disturbances, added to the disasters in America, induced the House of Commons to pass censure on Lord North and his colleague, as incapable of managing the helm of state. The king, therefore, was compelled to dismiss his ministers, whose administration had proved the most disastrous in British annals. Lord North, however, had uncommon difficulties to contend with, and might have governed the nation with honor in ordinary times. He resigned in 1782, four years after the death of Chatham, and the Marquis of Buckingham, a second time, was placed at the head of the government. Mr. Fox and Mr. Burke also obtained places, and the Whigs were once more triumphant.
The attention of the new ministry was imperatively demanded by theIrish Discontents.discontents in Ireland, and important concessions were made. Mr. Grattan moved an address to the king, which was unanimously carried in both Houses, in which it was declared that "the crown of Ireland was inseparably annexed to the crown of Great Britain; but that the kingdom of Ireland was a distinct kingdom, with a parliament of her own, the sole legislature thereof; that in this right they conceived the very essence of their liberty to exist; that in behalf of all the people of Ireland, they claimed this as their birthright, and could not relinquish it but with their lives; that they had a high veneration for the British character; and that, in sharing the freedom of England, it was their determination to share also her fate, and to stand and fall with the British nation." The new lord lieutenant, the Duke of Portland, assured the Irish parliament that the British legislature hadresolved to remove the cause of discontent, and a law was actually passed which placed the Irish parliament on the same footing as that of England. Acts were also passed for the right of habeas corpus, and for the independence of the judges.
The volunteers, having accomplished the objects which they originally contemplated, did not, however, disband, but now directed their efforts to a reform in parliament. But the House of Commons rejected the proposition offered by Mr. Flood, and the convention, appointed by the volunteers, indefinitely adjourned without persevering, as it should have done. The volunteer system soon after declined.
The cause of parliamentary reform, though no longer supported by the volunteers in their associate character, was not deserted by the people, or by their advocates in parliament. Among these advocates was William Pitt himself. But in 1783, he became prime minister, and changed his opinions.
But before the administration of Pitt can be presented, an event in the domestic history of England must be alluded to, which took place during the administration of Lord North. This was theProtestant Association.Protestant Association, headed by Lord George Gordon, and the riots to which it led.
In 1780, parliament had passed an act relieving Roman Catholics from some of the heavy penalties inflicted on them in the preceding century. It relieved bishops, priests, and schoolmasters from prosecution and imprisonment, gave security to the rights of inheritance, and permission to purchase lands on fee simple. This act of toleration was generally opposed in England; but the fanatical spirit of Presbyterianism in Scotland was excited in view of this reasonable indulgence, to a large body of men, of the rights of conscience and civil liberty. On the bare rumor of the intended indulgence, great tumults took place in Edinburgh and Glasgow; the Roman Catholic chapel was destroyed, and the houses of the principal Catholics were attacked and plundered. Nor did the magistracy check or punish these disorders with any spirit, but secretly favored the rioters. Encouraged by the indifference of the magistrates, the fanatics formed themselves into a society called theProtestant Association, to oppose any remission of the present unjust laws; and of this associationLord George Gordon's Riots.Lord George Gordon waschosen president. He was the son of the Duke of Gordon, belonging to one of the most ancient of the Scottish nobility, but a man in the highest degree wild and fanatical. He was also a member of parliament, and opposed the views of the most enlightened statesmen of his time, and with an extravagance which led to the belief that he was insane. He calumniated the king, defied the parliament, and boasted of the number of his adherents. He pretended that he had, in Scotland, one hundred and sixty thousand men at his command, who would cut off the king's head, if he did not keep his coronation oath. The enthusiasm of the Scotch soon spread to the English; and, throughout the country, associations were affiliated with the parent societies in London and Edinburgh, of both of which Lord Gordon was president. At Coachmakers' Hall he assembled his adherents; and, in an incendiary harangue, inflamed the minds of an immense audience in regard to the Church of Rome, with the usual invectives respecting its idolatry and corruption. He urged them to violent courses, as the only way to stop the torrent of Catholicism which was desolating the land. Soon after, this association assembled at St. George's Fields, to the astonishing number of fifty thousand people, marshalled in separate bands, with blue cockades; and this immense rabble proceeded through the city of London to the House of Parliament, preceded by a man carrying a petition signed by twelve hundred thousand names. The rabble took possession of the lobby of the house, making the old palace ring with their passionate cries of "No popery! no popery!" This mob was harangued by Lord Gordon himself, in the lobby of the house, while the matter was discussed among the members. The military were drawn out, and the mob was dispersed for a time, but soon assembled again, and became still more alarming. Houses were plundered, churches were entered, and the city set on fire in thirty-six different places. The people were obliged to chalk on their houses "No popery," and pay contributions to prevent their being sacked. The prisons were emptied of both felons and debtors. Lord Mansfield's splendid residence was destroyed, together with his pictures, furniture, and invaluable law library. Martial law was finally proclaimed—the last resort in cases of rebellion, and never resorted to but in extreme cases; and the military did what magistrates could notdo—restored order and law. Had not the city been decreed to be in a state of rebellion, the rioters would have taken the bank, which they had already attacked. Five hundred persons were killed in the riot, and Lord George Gordon was committed to the Tower. He, however, escaped conviction, through the extraordinary talents of his counsel, Mr. Erskine and Mr. Kenyon; but one hundred others were capitally convicted. This disgraceful riot opened the eyes of the people to the horrors of popular insurrection, and perhaps prevented a revolution in England, when other questions, of more practical importance, agitated the nation.
But no reform of importance took place until the administration of William Pitt. Mr. Burke attempted to secure some economical retrenchments, which were strongly opposed. But what was a retrenchment of two hundred thousand pounds a year, when compared with the vast expenditures of the British armies in America and in India? But though the reforms which Burke projected were not radical or important, they contributed to raise his popularity with the people, who were more annoyed by the useless offices connected with the king's household, than by the expenditure of millions in war. At first, his scheme received considerable attention, and the members listened to his propositions so long as they were abstract and general. But when he proceeded to specific reforms, they no longer regarded his voice, and he was obliged to abandon his task as hopeless. William Pitt made his first speech in the debate which Burke had excited, and argued in favor of retrenchment with the eloquence of his father, but with more method and clearness. The bill was lost, but Burke finally succeeded in carrying his measures; and the offices of the master of the harriers, the master of the staghounds, the clerk of the green cloth, and some other unimportant sinecures, were abolished.
The first attempt at thatParliamentary Reforms.great representative reform which afterwards convulsed the nation, was made by William Pitt. He brought forward two resolutions, to prevent bribery at elections, and secure a more equitable representation. But he did not succeed; and Pitt himself, when his cause was advocated by men of a different spirit,—men inflamed byReform Questions.revolutionary principles,—changed his course, and opposed parliamentary reform with more ardor than he had at first advocated it. But parliamentary reformdid not become an object of absorbing interest until the times of Henry Brougham and Lord John Russell.
No other great events were sufficiently prominent to be here alluded to, until the ministry of William Pitt. The American Revolution first demands attention.
References.—Belsham's History of the Reign of GeorgeIII.Walpole's Memoir of the same reign. Holt's Private and Domestic Life of GeorgeIII.Lord Brougham's Statesmen of the Reign of GeorgeIII.Smyth's Lectures. Thackeray's Life of the Earl of Chatham. Correspondence of the Earl of Chatham. Annual Register, from 1765 to 1775. Debret's Parliamentary Debates. Stephens' Life of Horne Tooke. Campbell's Lives of the Lord Chancellors. Macaulay's Essay on Chatham. Burke's Thoughts on the Present Discontents.(Back to Contents)
TheThe American Revolution.American Revolution, if contemplated in view of its ultimate as well as immediate consequences, is doubtless the greatest event of modern times. Its importance was not fully appreciated when it took place, but still excited a great interest throughout the civilized world. It was the main subject which engrossed the attention and called out the energies of British statesmen, during the administration of Lord North. In America, of course, all other subjects were trivial in comparison with it. The contest is memorable for the struggles of heroes, for the development of unknown energies, for the establishment of a new western empire, for the triumph of the cause of liberty, and for the moral effects which resulted, even in other countries, from the examples of patriots who preferred the glory and honor of their country to their own aggrandizement.
The causes of the struggle have been already alluded to in the selfishness and folly of British statesmen, who sought to relieve the burdens of the English people by taxing the colonies. The colonies were doubtless regarded by the British parliament without proper affection or consideration; somewhat in the light of a conquered nation, from which England might derive mercantile advantage. The colonies were not ruled in a spirit of conciliation, nor were the American people fully appreciated. Some, perhaps, like Chatham and Burke, may have known the virtues and the power of the colonial population, and may have had some glimpse of the glory and greatness to which America was destined. But they composed but a small minority of the nation, and their advice and remonstrances were generally disregarded.
Serious disturbances did not take place until Lord North commenced hisCauses of the Revolution.unfortunate administration, (1770.) Although the colonies were then resolved not to submit to unlawful taxation, and to an oppressive government, independence was not contemplated.Conciliatory measures, if they had been at that time adopted, probably would have deferred the Revolution. But the contest must have occurred, at a later date; for nothing, in the ordinary course of events, could have prevented the ultimate independence of the colonies. Their rapid growth, the extent of the country in which settlements were made, its distance from England, the spirit of liberty which animated the people, their general impatience under foreign restraint, and the splendid prospects of future greatness which were open to their eyes, must have led to a rupture with the mother country at no distant time.
The colonies, at the commencement of their difficulties, may have exaggerated their means of resistance, but not their future greatness. All of them, from New Hampshire to Georgia, were animated by a spirit of liberty which no misfortunes could crush. A large majority of the people were willing to incur the dangers incident to revolution, not for themselves merely, but for the sake of their posterity, and for the sacred cause of liberty. They felt that their cause was just, and that Providence would protect and aid them in their defence.
A minute detail of the events of the American Revolution, of course, cannot be expected in a history like this. Only the more prominent events can be alluded to. The student is supposed to be familiar with the details of the conflict, which are to be read in the works of numerous American authors.
Lord North, at the commencement of his administration, repealed the obnoxious duties which had been imposed in 1767, but still retained the duty on tea, with a view chiefly to assert the supremacy of Great Britain, and her right to tax the colonies. This course of the minister cannot be regarded in any other light than that of the blindest infatuation.
The imposition of the port duties, by Grenville, had fomented innumerable disturbances, and had led to universal discussion as to the nature and extent of parliamentary power. A distinction, at first, had been admitted between internal and external taxes; but it was soon asserted that Great Britain had no right to tax the colonies, either internally or externally. It was stated that the colonies had received charters, under the great seal, which had given them all the rights and privileges of Englishmen at homeand therefore that they could not be taxed, except by their own consent; that this consent had never been asked or granted; that they were unrepresented in the imperial parliament; and that the taxes which had been imposed by their own respective legislatures were, in many instances, greater than what were paid by the people of England—taxes too, incurred, to a great degree, to preserve the jurisdiction of Great Britain on the American continent. The colonies were every where exceedingly indignant with the course the mother country had pursued with reference to them. Patrick Henry, a Virginian, supported the cause of liberty with unrivalled eloquence and power, as did John Adams, Josiah Quincy, Jr., James Otis, and other patriots in Massachusetts. Riots took place in Boston, Newport, and New York, and assemblies of citizens in various parts expressed an indignant and revolutionary spirit.
The residence of the military at Boston was, moreover, the occasion of perpetualRiots and Disturbances.tumult. The people abused the soldiers, vilified them in newspapers, and insulted them in the street. Mutual animosity was the result. Rancor and insults produced riot, and the troops fired upon the people. So great was the disturbances, that the governor was reluctantly obliged to remove the military from the town. The General Court was then removed to Cambridge, but refused to enter upon business unless it were convened in Boston. Fresh disturbances followed. The governor quarrelled with the legislature, and a complete anarchy began to prevail. The public mind was inflamed by effigies, paintings, and incendiary articles in the newspapers. The parliament was represented as corrupt, the ministry as venal, the king as a tyrant, and England itself as a rotten, old, aristocratic structure, crumbling to pieces. The tide was so overwhelming in favor of resistance, that even moderate men were borne along in the current; and those who kept aloof from the excitement were stigmatized as timid and selfish, and the enemies of their country. The courts of justice were virtually silenced, since juries disregarded the charges of the judges. Libels were unnoticed, and the rioters were unpunished. Smuggling was carried on to a great extent, and revenue officers were insulted in the discharge of their duties. Obnoxious persons were tarred and feathered, and exposed to public derision and scorn. In Providence, they burnt the revenuecutter, and committees were formed in the principal towns who fanned the flame of sedition. The committee in Boston, in 1773, framed a celebrated document, called theBill of Rights, in which the authority of parliament to legislate for the colonies, in any respect, was denied, and in which the salaries decreed by the crown to the governor and judges were considered as a systematic attempt to enslave the land.
The public discontents were further inflamed by the information which Dr. Franklin, then in London, afforded the colonies, and the advice he gave them to persevere, assuring them that, if they were firm, they had nothing to apprehend. Moreover, he got into his possession a copy of the letters of Governor Hutchinson to the ministry, which he transmitted to the colonies, and which by them were made public. These letters were considered by the legislature of Massachusetts as unjust and libellous, and his recall was demanded. Resolutions, of an offensive character to the English, were every where passed, and all things indicated an approaching storm. The crisis was at hand. The outrage, in Boston harbor, of throwing overboard three hundred and forty-two chests of tea, which the East India Company had sent to America, consummated the difficulties, and induced the government to resort to more coercive measures.
It was in the power of Lord North to terminate the difficulties with the colonies when the East India Company urged him to repeal theDuty on Tea.duty of threepence per pound on tea, and offered to pay sixpence per pound in lieu of it, as export duty, if permitted to import it into the colonies duty free. The company was induced to make this proposition in view of the great accumulation of tea in England; but the government, more solicitous about the right than the revenue, would not consent. The colonists were equally determined to resist taxation, not on account of immediate burdens, but upon principle, and therefore resolved to prevent the landing of the tea. A multitude rushed to the wharf, and twenty persons, disguised as Indians, went on board the ships laden with it, staved the chests, and threw their contents into the sea. In New York and Philadelphia, as no persons could be found who would venture to receive the tea sent to those ports, the ships laden with it returned to England.