showing that the first proposal of this enormous pension had come from Lord Rockingham himself!. "I was thus left," wrote Burke, many years later, "to support the grants of a "name ever dear to me against the rude attacks of those who 'were at that time friends to the grantees.”

Another Bill, which the new Ministers supported, but which had been introduced by Sir Harbord Harbord before their accession to office, was to punish the proved corruption of the borough of Cricklade. In strict conformity with the precedent of Shoreham, it was proposed to extend the franchise from the small town to the neighbouring Hundreds. This measure was opposed with the utmost warmth by the Opposer General Lord Thurlow; Lord Mansfield and Lord Loughborough also spoke against it; nevertheless, it was carried through by large majorities. Cricklade being, like Shoreham, wholly venal, both had been much under the control of rich Nabobs; and Mr. Frederick Montagu stated in the House of Commons, that Lord Chatham, on being shown the former Bill, had used this striking phrase: "I am glad to find the borough of Shoreham is likely to be "removed from Bengal to its ancient situation in the county "of Sussex."

But the high authority of Chatham might be pleaded for much more extensive measures of Reform. Often in the House of Lords had he lamented the growing venality of the smaller boroughs, and proposed the immediate addition of a hundred County members. And once in conversing with Lord Buchan (this was in the year 1775), he had ventured to prophesy as follows: "Before the close of this century, "either the Parliament will reform itself from within, or be "reformed with a vengeance from without." * Since the meetings of 1780, the question had more than ever stirred the public mind, and it continued to be eagerly pressed forward by the delegates of the associated or petitioning counties. It was on Chatham's son that the conduct of it now devolved. On the 7th of May, Mr. Pitt, seconded by Alderman Sawbridge,

*See a note to the Parliamentary History, vol. xvii. p. 223.

1782. PITT'S MOTION ON PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 173

brought it forward in the House of Commons. To reconcile, or rather to conceal, the wide differences that prevailed as to any definite or specific plan, the motion of Pitt was only That a Committee be appointed to inquire into the present state of the Representation of the Commons, and to report what steps in their opinion it may be proper to take

thereupon.

*

On this question, the new Ministers were very much at variance. Fox, for example, was its steady friend. The opinions of the Duke of Richmond in its favour were not only eager, but extreme. On the other hand, Lord John Cavendish, as one of his colleagues tells us, was "diffident of the effect "of any Parliamentary Reform." It was caution only that withheld the open expression of the Prime Minister's repugnance. The effects of this strong disinclination in several of the Rockinghams was apparent on the 7th of May. Pitt urged his motion with great ability; it was supported not less ably by Sheridan and Fox; but Dundas opposed it in a speech abounding both with argument and wit; Burke and Thomas Townshend absented themselves; and the proposal for a Committee was negatived by twenty votes, the numbers being 161 to 141.

It was with some difficulty that Fox had prevailed on Burke to keep aloof on this occasion. But on a later day, when the general question was again incidentally discussed, the member for Malton could no longer be restrained. Then, as Sheridan relates it in a secret letter to Fitzpatrick, "Burke "acquitted himself with the most magnanimous indiscretion, "attacked William Pitt in a scream of passion, and swore "Parliament was and always had been precisely what it "ought to be, and that all people who thought of reforming "it wanted to overturn the Constitution." **

The debate in which Burke thus unburthened himself, was on Alderman Sawbridge moving to shorten the duration

* On Lord Rockingham and Lord John Cavendish in 1780 and 1782, see the Memoirs by Lord Albemarle, vol. ii. pp. 395. and 481.

**Letter, May 20. 1782. Memorials of Fox, by Lord John Russell, vol. i. p. 322.

of Parliaments, when a large majority declared against that measure. Another Bill to prevent bribery and expenses at Elections, which was introduced by Lord Mahon and supported by Mr. Pitt, seemed at first to meet with more success. It passed the Second Reading, but in the Committee some of its provisions were deemed unduly severe — -the candidate being precluded from defraying the conveyance of the non-resident voters to the poll. Several long debates ensued upon it; but the most stringent of its clauses being negatived, Lord Mahon withdrew the Bill.

All this while the position of Fox as leader had been far from easy to himself. Thus does he describe it in a letter to Fitzpatrick, his most confidential friend: "Our having been "beat upon Pitt's motion will, in my opinion, produce "many more bad consequences than many people seem to "suppose...... The very thin attendances which appear 66 on most occasions are very disheartening and sometimes "embarrassing to me. Upon the Bill for securing Sir "Thomas Rumbold's property we were only 36 to 33. The "Attorney and Solicitor General were both against me, and "I had the mortification to depend for support upon the "Lord Advocate and Jenkinson...... I have given you but "a small part of my ill humour when I have confined myself "to the House of Commons. The House of Lords has been "the most shameful scene you can imagine. The Duke of "Richmond, in points where he was clearly right, has been "deserted by every Minister present more than once." *

But all these Parliamentary proceedings or Cabinet perplexities, however important in themselves, could only be deemed subordinate to two main objects of the new administration or of any administration at that time in England: to carry on the war as long as it was necessary, and to conclude a peace as soon as it was possible.

As regards the former, little news of any moment came

*Letter, May 11. 1782. The Bill upon Sir Thomas Rumbold was to restrain him from quitting the kingdom or alienating his property, pending the inquiry respecting his conduct at Madras. It was founded on a precedent in the South Sea case. See Parl. Hist. vol. xxii. p. 1396, &c.

1782.

MURDER OF CAPTAIN HUDDY.

175

from North America. There, both parties had continued for the most part at gaze, the English merely holding their strong positions, which the Americans were contented with observing. Early in May, Sir Henry Clinton was at length permitted to retire from his arduous command, which was assumed by Sir Guy Carleton in his place. Sir Guy had received most conciliatory orders from the Rockingham Ministry, and attempted, but in vain, to open a separate negotiation with the Congress. He found both parties more than ever inflamed against each other by an unhappy transaction which had taken place only a few weeks before. Here are the particulars. The American loyalists in arms on the side of England had grievous cause throughout the war to complain of the merciless treatment of such among them as fell into their countrymen's hands. Elsewhere I have cited the sanguinary proverb which it seems was in vogue against them.* It so chanced that while the violent death of one of their own number, Philip White, was freshly rankling in their minds, they made prisoner in the Jerseys Joshua Huddy, a Captain in the service of Congress. Provoked by cruel conduct, they were guilty of an unjustifiable retaliation. A party of them under Captain Lippencot led out Huddy to the heights of Middletown and there hanged him on a tree, affixing on his breast an inscription which concluded with these words: "We determine to hang man "for man while there is a refugee existing; up goes Huddy "for Philip White!"** Greatly incensed at this outrage, Sir Henry Clinton ordered Lippencot to be arrested and brought to trial for murder. But this course did not satisfy Washington, who wrote to the English General, insisting that Lippencot should be given up to him for summary punishment. When he found that this demand was not complied with, Washington next announced, that he should select one of the British prisoners as an object of retaliation.

* See vol. vi. p. 88.

**The entire inscription is given in Ramsay's Hist. vol. ii. p. 289. Consult also the narrative of Mr. Sparks, in his Life of Washington, p. 378.

He cast lots for a victim, and the lot fell upon Captain Asgill, one of the York-town captives, a young officer only nineteen years of age. In vain did first Sir Henry and then Sir Guy express their utter abhorrence of the act of Lippencot, and their firm determination to exert the laws against him. The difficulty was further increased upon Lippencot's trial, when it was found that he could not, in strict justice, be convicted, as not mainly answerable for his crime. It appeared that he had only acted in conformity with what he believed to be his orders from the Board of Associated Loyalists sitting at New York, with the son of Franklin as their President. The most earnest representations were made in favour of Asgill, but his case remained in suspense for several months. Even after Washington's more noble nature had relented, the majority of Congress were obdurate; and while he inclined to mercy they were still sternly determined upon vengeance. But the mother of Asgill having written a pathetic appeal to the French Ministry wrought upon the kindly feelings of the King and Queen, and obtained a letter from the Comte de Vergennes to Washington, dated the 29th of July, and soliciting the young officer's release. Besides the plea of pity, De Vergennes put forward in some slight degree a claim of right. "Captain Asgill," he wrote, "is doubtless your prisoner, "but he is among those whom the arms of the King, my "master, contributed to put into your hands at York-town." He also thought it necessary to guard against another possible Resolution of the Congress. "In seeking to deliver “Mr. Asgill from the fate which threatens him, I am far "from engaging you to select another victim; the pardon to "be perfectly satisfactory must be entire." The progress of the negotiations for peace happily concurred to the same end with these compassionate entreaties, and at last on the 7th of November the Congress came to a vote that Captain Asgill should be set free.*

*In the Ann. Regist. 1783, p. 241., will be found the letters of Lady Asgill and of the Comte de Vergennes. The former might well indeed have