to "revive the expiring reputation of the Congress."* We find a third lamenting that "even good Whigs begin to think "peace, at some expense, desirable."**

When such was the feeling in America, both as regarded Lord Chatham and as regarded the Congress, it would not certainly follow that any overture from the former would be rejected on account of the disapprobation of the latter. The provinces might perhaps have been inclined to control the deliberations, or even to cast off the sway, of the central body, and make terms of peace for themselves. At least all such hope was not precluded; at least some such trial might be made. Nor does it appear to me, as to Mr. Macaulay, that there was any, even the slightest, inconsistency in Lord Chatham having first pronounced against the conquest of America, and yet refusing to allow her independence, after the declaration in her behalf of France. Lord Chatham had said no doubt that America could not be conquered. Had he ever said that she could not be reconciled? It was on conciliation, and not on conquest, that he built his later hopes. He thought the Declaration of France no obstacle to his views, but rather an instrument for their support. He conceived that the treaty of alliance concluded by the envoys of the Congress with the Court of Versailles might tend beyond any other cause to rekindle British feelings in the hearts of the Americans. Were the glories of Wolfe and Amherst, in which they had partaken, altogether blotted from their minds? Would the Puritans be inclined to make common cause with the Papists? Would the soldier-yeomen of the Colonies be willing to fight side by side with those French whom, till within these fifteen years, they had found in Canada their bitter hereditary foes? That consequences like to these, that some such revulsion of popular feeling in America, might, perhaps, ensue from an open French alliance, is an apprehension which, during the first

* Letter from William Duer of New York to Robert Morris, dated March 6. 1778, and printed in the Life of Reed, vol. i. p. 365.

** General Reed to President Wharton, February 1. 1778.

years of the contest, we find several times expressed in the secret letters of the Revolution chiefs; it was a possibility which we see called forth their fears; why then might it not be allowed to animate the hopes of Chatham?

In this state of parties and of public feeling, the Duke of Richmond, far unlike Lord Chatham, had become eager to close the American contest by a surrender of the British sovereignty. He gave notice of an Address to His Majesty for the 7th of April, entreating the King instantly to withdraw his fleets and armies from the Thirteen Revolted Provinces, and to make peace with them on such terms as might secure their good will. Lord Chatham was at that time slowly recovering from gout, and still much indisposed, at Hayes. No sooner did he hear of the intended Address than he determined to appear in the House of Lords and oppose it. For such an exertion it was clear that he had not yet regained sufficient strength of body nor even composure of mind. His family and friends endeavoured to dissuade him, but in vain. On the 7th of April then he came, or it might almost be said was carried in, walking with feeble steps, and leaning with one arm on his son William, with the other on Lord Mahon. Of the solemn and memorable scene which ensued I have already, in my sketch of Lord Chatham's character, given, by anticipation, some account.* But since that time a letter from Lord Camden has been produced from the Grafton Correspondence, containing a more full and authentic description than we previously possessed. "The Earl spoke," says Lord Camden, "but was not like "himself; his speech faltered, his sentences broken, and "his mind not master of itself. His words were shreds of "unconnected eloquence and flashes of the same fire which "he, Prometheus-like, had stolen from Heaven, and were "then returning to the place from whence they were taken. "Your Grace sees even I, who am a mere prose-man, am

* Vol. iii. p. 18. For Lord Camden's letter to the Duke of Grafton (April 9. 1778), see the Appendix to the present volume. The Duke was at this time attending the muster of the Militia in Suffolk.

"tempted to be poetical while I am discoursing of this extra"ordinary man's genius." The purport of his speech was to rouse, if yet could be, a British spirit on both sides of the Atlantic; with an unconquerable courage he protested against surrendering the birth-right of the British princes, and the union of the British race and name. "I will never "consent," he cried, "to deprive the Royal offspring of the "House of Brunswick, the heirs of" — (here he faltered for some moments, while striving to recall the name) "of "the Princess Sophia, of their fairest inheritance. My "Lords, His Majesty succeeded to an empire as great in "extent as its reputation was unsullied. Shall we tarnish "the lustre of that empire by an ignominious surrender of its "rights?... Shall we now fall prostrate before the House "of Bourbon? Surely, my Lords, this nation is no longer "what it was! Shall a people that, seventeen years ago, was the terror of the world, now stoop so low as to tell its "ancient inveterate enemy: 'Take all we have; only give us "peace?' It is impossible! I wage war with no man or set "of men. I wish for none of their employments, nor would "I co-operate with men who still persist in unretracted error. "But in God's name, if it is absolutely necessary to declare "either for peace or war, and the former cannot be pre"served with honour, why is not the latter commenced "without hesitation? I am not, I confess, well informed of "the resources of this kingdom, but I trust it has still suffi"cient, though I know them not, to maintain its just rights. "My Lords, any state is better than despair. Let us at "least make one effort, and if we must fall, let us fall like "men!"

66

When Chatham had resumed his seat the Duke of Richmond rose to reply. "My Lords," he said, "there is not a "person present who more sincerely wishes than I do that "America should remain dependent on this country. But as "I am convinced that it is now totally impracticable, I am "anxious to retain the Americans as allies, because if they "are not on terms of friendship with us they must necesMahon, History. VI.

16

"sarily throw themselves into the arms of France; and if we "go to war with France on account of her late treaty, the "Colonies will look upon themselves as bound in honour to "assist her. And what prospect of success have we?... "Not one of your Lordships has a more grateful memory "than I have of the services performed for his country by "the Noble Earl who spoke last; he raised its glory, repu"tation, and success to a height never before experienced "by any other nation. His Lordship's name -I beg his "pardon for mentioning it — the name of Chatham, will ever "be dear to Englishmen; but while I grant this, I am con"vinced that the name of Chatham is not able to perform im"possibilities; and that even high and respectable as it is, "the present state of the country is by no means what it was "when the Noble Earl was called to direct our councils. We "had then America for us; we have now America against us; "instead of Great Britain and America against France and "Spain, it will now be France, Spain, and America against "Great Britain."

At the conclusion of the Duke of Richmond's speech Lord Chatham stood up to speak again. But his frame, already overwrought, was unequal to this last exertion. He staggered, and fell back in a fit, or, as termed by his friends, a swoon. To all appearance he lay in the very agonies of death. Deep and earnest was the sympathy. The debate was immediately adjourned. The Peers started up and crowded round the illustrious sufferer, eager to assist him. One only, the Earl of Mansfield, retained his seat, and looked with slight concern on the fall of his former rival; "almost as much unmoved," Lord Camden writes, "as the senseless body itself." In the arms of his friends Chatham was borne to a neighbouring apartment, and thence to a neighbouring house. By the prompt aid of a physician he had in some measure rallied, and within a few days could be removed to his own dwelling at Hayes. There, on the morning of the 11th of May, and in the seventieth year of his age, he expired. Whether since his seizure he

ever recovered full consciousness, I do not find recorded. Of his last days nothing further is known, but I have observed that in the cast taken of his features after death, the mouth is greatly drawn on one side.

On the very day of his decease, Colonel Barré rose in the House of Commons to move that the remains of the great statesman should be interred at the public charge. He was seconded by Thomas Townshend, a rising Parliamentary speaker, afterwards Secretary of State and Lord Sydney. No voice but in eulogy was raised on this occasion. Even Rigby, with many professions of high respect, only said that, in his judgment, a monument to Lord Chatham's memory would be a more eligible, as well as a more lasting, testimony of the public gratitude. If, as is probable, Rigby's view in this suggestion was to defeat or elude the motion indirectly, he must have been not a little disappointed when he saw Dunning rise to say that he thought the two proposals in no degree opposed to each other, and that he would readily move Mr. Rigby's as an addition to Colonel Barre's. The amended motion, combining both proposals, was accordingly put from the Chair. Meanwhile Lord North, who had gone home, not expecting any business of this kind to be brought forward, entered the House in great haste. He declared himself happy to have arrived in time enough to give his vote in favour of the motion. He was only sorry, he said, that he had not breath enough, from the hurry in which he came, to express himself with the degree of respect which he wished to show to Lord Chatham's memory. The motion, as amended, then passed unanimously.

Two days afterwards the subject was resumed by Lord John Cavendish. He expressed his hope that the first vote would not be the limit of public gratitude, but that adequate provision might be made for the descendants of a statesman who, whilst in the nation's service, had ever neglected his own interests. In this suggestion, also, Lord North and the House cordially concurred. An Address was carried to the King, in consequence of which His Majesty declared his