The Constitutional History of England From 1760 to 1860

corn, in consequence of apprehended famine, he proved triumphantly that, although the measure was expedient and proper, it was a violation of law, and required to be sanctioned by an act of indemnity.' And Lord Campbell adds, in a note: 'This doctrine, acted upon in 1827, during the administration of Mr. Canning, and on several subsequent occasions, is now universally taken for constitutional law' (ii., 468).]

[Footnote 23: To adduce a single instance, worthy of remark as affecting the personal liberty of the subject, in 1818 a bill of indemnity was passed to sanction the action of the ministry in arresting and detaining in prison, without bringing them to trial, several persons accused of being implicated in seditious proceedings (vide infra).]

[Footnote 24: Vol. xvii., 304.]

[Footnote 25: The case is mentioned by Lord Campbell in his 'Lives of the Chancellors,' c. cxxi. (life of Lord Macclesfield) and c. cxxiv. (life of Lord Chancellor King).]

[Footnote 26: In fact, however, the age at which a young prince was considered competent to exercise the royal authority in person had been fixed at eighteen; and it is so stated in the speech in which the King, in 1765, recommended the appointment of a Regent to Parliament.- Parliamentary History, xvi., 52.]

[Footnote 27: This idea was expanded into an epigram, which appeared in most of the daily papers, and has been thought worthy of being preserved in the 'Parliamentary History,' xvii., 401 (note):

'Quoth Dick to Tom, 'This act appears

Absurd, as I'm alive,

To take the crown at eighteen years,

A wife at twenty-five.

The mystery how shall we explain?

For sure, as Dowdeswell said,

Thus early if they're fit to reign,

They must be fit to wed.'

Quoth Tom to Dick, 'Thou art a fool,

And nothing know'st of life;

Alas! it's easier far to rule

A kingdom than a wife.'']

[Footnote 28: It is remarkable that this clause on one occasion proved an obstacle to the punishment of the abettors of such a marriage. In 1793 the Duke of Sussex married Lady Augusta Murray, first at Rome, and afterward, by banns, at St. George's, Hanover Square. And when the affair came to be investigated by the Privy Council, Lord Thurlow denounced the conduct of the pair in violent terms, and angrily asked the Attorney-general, Sir John Scott, why he had not prosecuted all the parties concerned in this abominable marriage. Sir John's reply, as he reported it himself, was sufficiently conclusive: 'I answered that it was a very difficult business to prosecute; that the act, it was understood, had been drawn by Lord Mansfield, the Attorney-general Thurlow, and the Solicitor-general Wedderburn, who, unluckily, had made all persons present at the marriage guilty of felony. And as nobody could prove the marriage except a person who had been present at it, there could be no prosecution, because nobody present could be compelled to be a witness.'-THORP'S Life of Eldon, i., 235.]

[Footnote 29: A protest against the bill, entered by fourteen peers, including one bishop (of Bangor), denounced it, among other objections, as 'contrary to the original inherent rights of human nature ... exceeding the power permitted by Divine Providence to human legislation ... and shaking many of the foundations of law, religion, and public security.'-Parliamentary History, xvii., 391.]

[Footnote 30: The import duty on wheat was fixed at 6_d. a quarter on grain, and 2_d. per cwt. on flour, when the price of wheat in the kingdom should be at or above 48s.; when it was at or above 44s., the exportation was to be altogether prohibited.-Parliamentary History, xvii., 476.]

[Footnote 31: See Hallam, 'Constitutional History,' iii., 38-46, ed. 1833, where, as far as the imperfection of our early Parliamentary records allows, he traces the origin of the assertion of this peculiar privilege by the Commons, especially referring to a discussion of the proper limits of this privilege in several conferences between the two Houses; where, as on some other occasions, he sees, in the assertion of their alleged rights by the Commons, 'more disposition to make encroachments than to guard against those of others.' A few years before (in 1763), the House of Lords showed that they had no doubt of their right to reject a money-bill, since they divided on the Cider Bill, which came under that description. As, however, the bill was passed, that division was not brought under the notice of the House. But in 1783, in the time of the Coalition Ministry, the peers having made amendments on the American Intercourse Bill, 'the Speaker observed that, as the bill empowered the crown to impose duties, it was, strictly speaking, a money-bill, and therefore the House could not, consistently with its own orders, suffer the Lords to make any amendments on it, and he recommended that the consideration of their amendments should be postponed for three months, and in the mean time a new bill framed according to the Lords' amendments should be passed.' The recommendation was approved by Mr. Pitt, as leader of the Opposition, and approved and acted on by Mr. Fox, as leader of the ministry in that House. But, at the same time, Mr. Fox fully admitted the right of the Lords to discuss such questions, 'for it would be very absurd indeed to send a loan bill to the Lords for their concurrence, and at the same time deprive them of the right of deliberation. To lay down plans and schemes for loans belonged solely to the Commons; and he was willing, therefore, that the amended bill should be rejected, though he was of opinion that the order of the House respecting money-bills was often too strictly construed.' And he immediately moved for leave to bring in a new bill, which was verbatim the same with the amended bill sent down by the Lords.-Parliamentary History, xxiii., 895. The question was revived in the present reign, on the refusal of the Lords to concur in the abolition of the duty on paper, when the whole subject was discussed with such elaborate minuteness, and with so much more command of temper than was shown on the present occasion, that it will be better to defer the examination of the principle involved till we come to the history of that transaction.]

[Footnote 32: 'Parliamentary History,' xvii., 515.]

CHAPTER III. Mr. Grenville imposes a Duty on Stamps in the North American Colonies.- Examination of Dr. Franklin.-Lord Rockingham's Ministry Repeals the Duty.-Lord Mansfield affirms a Virtual Representation in the Colonies.-Mr. C. Townsend imposes Import Duties in America.-After some Years, the Civil War breaks out.-Hanoverian Troops are sent to Gibraltar.-The Employment of Hanoverian Regiments at Gibraltar and Minorca.-End of the War.-Colonial Policy of the Present Reign.-Complaints of the Undue Influence of the Crown.-Motions for Parliamentary Reform.-Mr. Burke's Bill for Economical Reform.-Mr. Dunning's Resolution on the Influence of the Crown.-Rights of the Lords on Money-bills.-The Gordon Riots.

But during these years another matter had been gradually forcing its way to the front, which, though at first it attracted but comparatively slight notice, when it came to a head, absorbed for several years the whole attention, not only of these kingdoms, but of foreign countries also. It was originally-in appearance, at least-merely a dispute between Great Britain and her Colonies in North America on the mode of obtaining a small revenue from them. But, in its progress, it eventually involved us in a foreign war of great magnitude, and thus became the one subject of supreme interest to every statesman in Europe. England had not borne her share in the seven years' war without a considerable augmentation of the national debt, and a corresponding increase in the amount of yearly revenue which it had become necessary to raise;[33] and Mr. Grenville, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, had to devise the means of meeting the demand. A year before, he had supported with great warmth the proposal of Sir Francis Dashwood, his predecessor at the Exchequer, to lay a new tax upon cider. Now that he himself had succeeded to that office, he cast his eyes across the Atlantic, and, on the plea that the late war had to a certain extent been undertaken for the defence of the Colonies in North America, he proposed to make them bear a share in the burden caused by enterprises from which they had profited. Accordingly, in March, 1764, he proposed a series of resolutions imposing a variety of import duties on different articles of foreign produce imported into 'the British Colonies and plantations in America,' and also export duties on a few articles of American growth when 'exported or conveyed to any other place except to Great Britain.' Another resolution affirmed 'that, toward defraying the said expense, it might be proper to charge certain stamp-duties in the said Colonies and plantations.'

The resolutions imposing import and export duties were passed by both Houses almost without comment. That