and of America. I think myself more fortunate than all my fellow-citizens in having the distinguished honor to be the first to stand in your Majesty's royal presence in a diplomatic character; and I shall esteem myself the happiest of men if I can be instrumental in recommending my country more and more to your Majesty's royal benevolence, and of restoring an entire esteem, confidence, and affection, or, in better words, the old good nature and the old good humor between people, who, though separated by an ocean, and under different governments, have the same language, a similar religion, and kindred blood.

"I beg your Majesty's permission to add that, although I have some time before been intrusted by my country, it was never in my whole life in a manner more agreeable to myself."

The king listened to every word I said with dignity but with an apparent emotion. Whether it was the nature of the interview, or whether it was my visible agitation, for I felt more than I did or could express, that touched him, I cannot say. But he was much affected, and answered me with more tremor than I had spoken with, and said:

"Sir:

"The circumstances of this audience are so extraordinary, The king's the language you have now held is so extremely proper, and gentle reply the feelings you have discovered so justly adapted to the occasion, that I must say that I not only receive with pleasure the assurance of the friendly dispositions of the United States, but that I am very glad the choice has fallen upon you to be their minister. I wish you, sir, to believe, and that it may be understood in America, that I have done nothing in the late contest but what I thought myself indispensably bound to do, by the duty which I owed to my people.

66

"I will be very frank with you. I was the last to consent to the separation; but the separation having been made, and having become inevitable, I have always said, as I say now, that I would be the first to meet the friendship of the United States as an independent power. The moment I see such sentiments and language as yours prevail, and a disposition

to give to this country the preference, that moment I shall say, let the circumstances of language, religion, and blood have their natural and full effect."

I dare not say that these were the king's precise words, and it is even possible that I may have in some particular mistaken his meaning; for although his pronunciation is as distinct as I ever heard, he hesitated some time between his periods, and between the members of the same period. He was indeed much affected, and I confess I was not less so, and therefore I cannot be certain that I was so cool and attentive, heard so clearly, and understood so perfectly, as to be confident of all his words or sense; and I think that all which he said to me should at present be kept secret in America, unless his Majesty or his secretary of state, who alone was present, should judge proper to report it. This I do say, that the foregoing is his Majesty's meaning, as I then understood it, and his own words, as nearly as I can recollect them.

389. A discussion in the House

of Commons

(April 6,

1780)

V. DISSATISFACTION WITH THE GOVERNMENT

The loss of the American colonies reacted strongly on the political conditions in England. One of the first indications of this was the passage in the House of Commons in 1780 of the resolutions referred to in the following description. Although apparently not immediately applicable, they were directed against the whole fabric of the government of George III and the ministers whom he had chosen. They were adopted by a vote of 233 to 215.

On the 6th of April the House of Commons resolved itself into a committee, in order to take the petitions of the people into consideration; and on this occasion a very important debate took place concerning the influence of the crown. The titles of the petitions were previously read, and they amounted to forty in number.

The debate was opened by Mr. Dunning, who observed that there were two great objects which the petitions recommended to the care and attention of parliament: these were a reduction of the dangerous, alarming, and increasing influence of the crown, and an economical expenditure of the public money. Little had yet been done in compliance with the requisitions of the people. . . .

As so little had hitherto been done towards complying with the petitions of the people, he thought it absolutely necessary that parliament should come to a clear and explicit conclusion on the subject; and that in the present session it should be plainly demonstrated to the people that their petitions would either be granted or rejected. He hoped that he should be able to effectuate this, and with this view he had framed such propositions as would produce, either directly or by clear implication, that information. . . .

I. "That it is the opinion of this committee that it is neces- 390. Mr. sary to declare that the influence of the crown has increased, Dunning's is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

II. "That it is competent to this House to examine into and to correct abuses in the expenditure of the civil list revenues, as well as in every other branch of the public revenue, whenever it shall appear expedient to the wisdom of this House so to do."

The Gordon riots, as described in the following passages, are not so much an instance of opposition to the policy of the ministry as they are, like the Wilkes affair, an indication of the breach between the masses of the people and all branches of the government.

resolutions

from Wraxall's Mem

Lord North, who had presided during ten years at the head 391. Extracts of the administration, continued, in the spring of 1780, to struggle with the utmost difficulty through the sixth session oirs of parliament, against a numerous and augmenting opposition in both houses. His resignation, anxiously anticipated, seemed to be inevitable, and even imminent; but the ministerial disgraces, as well as the triumphs of the adverse party, were

Attack on the

Mansfield

equally obliterated in a calamity which for the time of its duration absorbed all attention. I mean the riots of June, 1780. No event in our annals bears any analogy with the scene then exhibited in the capital, except the fire of London under Charles the Second. . . .

I was personally present at many of the most tremendous house of Lord effects of the popular fury, on the memorable 7th of June, the night on which it attained its highest point. About nine o'clock on that evening, accompanied by three other gentlemen, who, as well as myself, were alarmed at the accounts brought in every moment of the outrages committed and of the still greater acts of violence meditated as soon as darkness should favor and facilitate their further progress, we set out from Portland Place in order to view the scene. Having got into a hackney coach, we drove to Bloomsbury Square, attracted to that spot by a rumour, generally spread, that Lord Mansfield's residence, situate at the northeast corner, was either already burnt or destined for destruction. Hart Street and Great Russell Street presented each to the view as we passed large fires composed of furniture taken from the houses of magistrates or other obnoxious individuals. Quitting the coach, we crossed the square, and had scarcely got under the wall of Bedford House when we heard the door of Lord Mansfield's house burst open with violence. In a few minutes all the contents of the apartments, being precipitated from the windows, were piled up and wrapt in flames. A file of foot soldiers arriving, drew up near the blazing pile, but without either attempting to quench the fire or to impede the mob, who were indeed far too numerous to admit of their being dispersed or even intimidated by a small detachment of infantry. The populace remained masters, while we, after surveying the spectacle for a short time, moved on into Holborn, where Mr. Langdale's dwelling house and warehouses afforded a more appalling picture of devastation. . . . In front had assembled an immense multitude of both sexes, many of whom were females, and not a few held infants in their arms. All appeared to be, like ourselves, attracted as spectators solely by curiosity, without taking any part in the acts of violence.

I would in vain attempt adequately to describe the spec- Rioting in the tacle which presented itself when we reached the declivity of city the hill, close to St. Andrews Church. The other house and magazines of Mr. Langdale, who, as a Catholic, had been selected for the blind vengeance of the mob, situated in the hollow near the north end of Fleet Market, threw up into the air a pinnacle of flame resembling a volcano. Such was the beautiful and brilliant effect of the illumination that St. Andrews Church appeared to be almost scorched by the heat of so prodigious a body of fire; and the figures on the clock were as distinctly discernible as at noonday.

Finding it altogether impracticable to force our way further down Holborn Hill, and hearing that the Fleet prison had been set on fire, we penetrated through a number of narrow lanes behind St. Andrews Church, and presently found ourselves in the middle of Fleet Market. Here the same destruction raged, but in a different stage of its progress. Mr. Langdale's houses were already at the height of their demolition: the Fleet prison, on the contrary, was only beginning to blaze, and the sparks or flaming particles that filled the air fell so thick upon us on every side as to render unsafe its immediate vicinity. Meanwhile we began to hear the platoons discharged on the other side of the river, towards St. George's Fields, and were informed that a considerable number of the rioters had been killed on Blackfriars Bridge, which was occupied by the troops. On approaching it we beheld the King's Bench prison completely wrapt in flames. It exhibited a sublime sight.

Sir Samuel Romilly was one of the most high-minded, patriotic, and useful public men of his time. What he tells in his journal of his difficulty in obtaining and keeping a seat in the House of Commons, and what appears in the two letters from Francis Horner to him and to Sydney Smith, throws a strong light on the bad methods of election of members of parliament, on its failure to represent the people of the country, and on the opportunities for corruption it offered. These extracts refer