66 In that arduous task could Lord Chatham have succeeded? Critics the most opposite have agreed that he could not. "Heaven," says Mr. Croker, "spared him the anxiety of the attempt, and, as we believe, the mortifi"cation of a failure."* Mr. Macaulay argues with much zeal in behalf of Lord Rockingham's views, and considers Lord Chatham's as almost demonstrably fallacious. "Chatham," he says, "had repeatedly, and with great energy of language, declared that it was impossible to 66 conquer America, and he could not without absurdity "maintain that it was easier to conquer France and "America together than America alone. But his passions overpowered his judgment. . . . That he was in error "will scarcely, we think, be disputed by his warmest "admirers."+ 66 Yet in spite of the respect justly due to such high authority, some grounds for doubt, at least, might be alleged. In the first place let it be remembered with what great, what singular, advantages Lord Chatham would have set his hand to the work. He had from the outset most ably and most warmly supported the claims of the Colonists. Some of his eloquent sentences had become watchwords in their mouths. His statue had been erected in their streets, his portrait was hanging in their councilchambers. For his great name they felt a love and reverence higher as yet than for any one of their own chiefs and leaders - not even at that early period excepting Washington himself. Thus if even it could be said that overtures of reconcilement had failed in every other British hand, it would afford no proof that in Chatham's they might not have thriven and borne fruit. But what at the same period was the position of the Congress? Had that assembly shown of late an enlightened zeal for the public interests, and did it then stand high in the confidence and affection of its countrymen? Far other. wise. The factions and divisions prevailing at their town of York; the vindictive rigour to political opponents, the neglect of Washington's army, and the cabals against Washington's power, combined to create disgust, with * Quarterly Review, No. cxxxi. p. 266. June, 1840. other less avoidable causes, as the growing depreciation of the paper-money, the ruinous loss of trade, and the augmented burdens of the war. Is the truth of this picture denied? Hear then as witnesses the Members of the Congress themselves. We find in this very month of March one of them write to another on the necessity of joint exertions 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-yeo Letter from William Duer of New York to Robert Morris, dated March 6. 1778, and printed in the Life of Reed, vol. i. p. General Reed to President Wharton, February 1. 1778. 365. men 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 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 him * 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. "self; 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 66 were taken. Your Grace sees even I, who am a mere prose-man, am tempted to be poetical while I am dis"coursing of this extraordinary 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 pros 66 "trate 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 66 66 66 operate with men who still persist in unretracted error. "But in God's name, if it is absolutely necessary to de"clare either for peace or war, and the former cannot be preserved with honour, why is not the latter com"menced without hesitation? I am not, I confess, well "informed of the resources of this kingdom, but I trust "it has still sufficient, 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. 66 My Lords," he said, “there "is not a person present who more sincerely wishes than "I do that America should remain dependent on this 66 66 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 necessarily 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 6: 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 expe"rienced 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 convinced that the name of Chatham "is not able to perform impossibilities; and that even "high and respectable as it is, the present state of the 66 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 Ame"rica against Great Britain." 66 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 ex |