BARRÉ OPPOSES GENERAL WARRANTS.

49

seat in Parliament. Sir John Griffin voted in the majority, "but not without such an explanation of his situation as an officer, and such manly and spirited observations upon the late removals in the army, that he was much more an intimidating than an intimidated voice on the side of the ministry. He did not affirm that officers had been removed for their conduct in Parliament; but if they had, or if twenty more such removals were intended, the ministry would be still disappointed in their expectations.'

The minority, in fact, although defeated, were persevering in their efforts to annoy and perplex the government. The question, as affecting Wilkes personally, being for the time disposed of, they turned their attention to the illegality of "general warrants,” such as that under which he had been arrested—a general warrant being one in which individuals were ordered to be arrested for offences, without specifying the persons by name.† Here, Barré again took the same course, and his name appears in a list of the minority of 220 who, on the 14th of February, 1764, voted against the Grenville administration on this important subject. The premier “denied the charge of menaces to officers:" upon which, says Walpole, "Colonel Barré rose, and this attended with a striking circumstance. Sir Edward Deering, one of our noisy fools, called out' Mr. Barré.' The latter seized the thought with admirable quickness, and said to the Speaker, who, in pointing to him, had called him Colonel, 'I beg your pardon, Sir, you have pointed to me by a title I have no right to;' and then made a very artful and pathetic speech on his own services and dismission; with nothing bad but an awkward attempt

*Letter from the Right Honourable James Grenville to Lady Chatham, 20th of January, 1764.-Chatham Correspondence, vol. ii., p. 275.

†The warrant against Wilkes was a command to apprehend "the authors, printers, and publishers," of the offensive periodical.

E

towards an excuse to Mr. Pitt for his former behaviour."*

Thus we

find Barré associated with Mr. Pitt and his political followers, and Walpole's shrewd anticipations thereby realised.

Many years afterwards (1775), the Colonel adverted in Parliament to his dismissal in the following terms:

"As to himself he stood there it was true, a humble individual, brought into Parliament, with reluctance on his own part, by the hand of friendship. His Majesty had thought fit to call him into his service; but when the matter of General Warrants was discussed in the House, and his conscience directed him to oppose the measure, which he modestly did by a silent vote, a younger officer was put purposely over his head, as an intimation that his services were no further necessary: he retired without repining, on a scanty pittance, as he would have done to the most mortifying state, without a murmur.”

It is unnecessary to dilate on the events of this particular era. It will be sufficient to state that after his dismissal Barré continued to oppose the politics of the Grenville administration, though without manifesting any personal hostility to that leader, individually, and by this line of conduct he became gradually more intimately associated with Mr. Pitt. That his ability as a debater increased with experience may easily be inferred. "Charles Townshend, (says Walpole) received a pretty heavy thump from Barré, who is the present Pitt, and the dread of all the vociferous Norths and Rigbys, on whose lungs depend so much of Mr. Grenville's power."† Again, we have an assurance of his independence, in reference to a particular question. "Barré spoke against Dowdeswell's proposal;

"Letters to the Earl of Hertford," p. 71. General Conway also voted in the minority, on this occasion, and, like Barré, was dismissed from his appointments. His case excited much public comment and disapprobation.

† Walpole's "Letters to the Earl of Hertford," p. 188. See also p. 200. Speaking of the Regency Bill, he says, "Barré, who will soon be our first orator, especially as some are afraid to dispute with him, attacked it admirably," (p. 215).

BARRÉ OPPOSES THE AMERICAN STAMP ACT.

51

though not setting himself up to auction like Charles Townshend nor friendly to the ministry; but temperately and sensibly.'

;

In 1765, Barré first distinguished himself in the Parliamentary Debates relating to the affairs of America. At the time referred to an injudicious attempt was made to raise a revenue from the British colonies in America, by means of stamp duties; but the measure led, in the first instance, to violent expressions of dissatisfaction on the part of the colonists, and their supporters at home, and subsequently to that long and disastrous war which resulted in the independence of America, and its final separation from the British dominions. This Stamp Act, upon its introduction by Mr. Grenville, early in the session of 1765, was rather popular than otherwise with the over-burthened people of England, though it excited a storm of indignation in the colonies. Burke declared that "no more than two or three gentlemen spoke against the Act, and that with great reserve and remarkable temper. There was but one division in the whole progress of the bill, and the minority did not reach to more than thirty-nine or forty. In the House of Lords I do not recollect that there was any debate or division at all. I am sure there was no protest." But amongst the "two or three" speakers against the Bill was Colonel Barré, who, in reply to Mr. Charles Townshend, the most eloquent of its supporters, made the admirable and forcible appeal to the House,-in itself almost prophetic of the result,—which has been quoted in page 14. General Conway and Alderman Beckford were also amongst the few who denied the power of Parliament to tax the colonies. The Bill, however, became an enactment in the month of March, 1765.

From internal dissensions and other causes the Grenville ministry gave way to that of the Marquess of Rockingham in the summer of

* Walpole's "Letters to the Earl of Hertford," p. 180.

+ Cooke's "History of Party,” vol. iii., p. 53.

1765. The latter administration was weak from the time of its formation, especially in subordinate adherents; and searching for such coadjutors, they introduced upon the stage of public life that highly gifted orator and statesman, Edmund Burke. Through the medium of General Conway, who became Secretary of State and leader of the House of Commons, an unsuccessful attempt was made to attach Colonel Barré to the Rockingham party. The following extracts will elucidate this negociation. Mr. Secretary Conway wrote as follows, on the 7th of November, 1765, to his brother, who held an appointment under the government in Ireland:

"Your opposition of nine is a pretty little opposition. I should be glad to compound with our opposers for six times that number; and on this head have an unpleasant article to tell you; which is, that Barré has refused: I have this day received his very civil, but direct excuse. He is pleased to say he knows very little of the present administration but myself, and has no knowledge of the plans of government. I know you'll think our affairs quite desperate after the chasm the poor Duke (of Cumberland) has made, and this capital refusal. Yet we don't at all think so."-Again;-" I believe I told you Barré refuses: that you'll dislike; and yet I think we much rather gain than lose ground on the whole." And on the 27th of December;-" A certain party keep aloof-I mean Lord Bute's friends-the two Townshends particularly. Lord Shelburne and Barré seem particularly fixed nowhere." ❤

It

appears a similar endeavour was made to secure the co-operation of Lord Shelburne; who thus described the circumstance in a letter to Mr. Pitt (21st December, 1765):

"What has passed in the House of Commons you will doubtless hear from better hands. I understand there has been a good deal of little debating there, on different things, without much effect, and not followed by any remarkable division. I had no idea that my conduct in the House of Lords could be remembered beyond the day; but the next day Lord Rockingham sent Sir Jeffery Amherst to Colonel Barré, and yesterday sent Mr. Dunning to Colonel Barré

66

'Changes of Administration and History of Parties;" an able series of papers in the Companion to the Newspaper (1835, p. 365.)

BARRÉ REFUSES OFFICE.

53

and me, with a great many flattering expressions, in regard to Tuesday; and in short, what I am almost ashamed to relate, that if I chose to make a part of the present system, he thought he could answer any opening would be made that I could wish, and that Colonel Barré should have rank in the army, or any thing else added to the vice-treasurership, which had been offered him some time since. My answer was very short, and very frank; that, independent of my connection, I was convinced, from my opinion of the state of the court, as well as the state of affairs everywhere, no system could be formed, durable and respectable, if Mr. Pitt could not be prevailed on to direct and head it." His Lordship adds, "I did not think it fit to suggest any thing, or to enter further into the matter. They persisted, however, in their application to Colonel Barré, who returned a still more explicit answer to the same purpose."*

On the meeting of Parliament, in the winter of 1765-66, the ministry proposed to repeal Mr. Grenville's Stamp Act; but they introduced a declaratory measure asserting the supreme authority of the mother country over the colonies; "thus abandoning the solid advantage, but clinging to the obnoxious principle,—shrinking themselves from the commission of injustice, but providing a ready excuse for any less scrupulous successors."†

Both of these measures were carried. The debates are not reported; but we are told that "Lord Shelburne, in the House of Lords, gave no direct opinion on the right of Parliament to tax America, but was understood rather to admit the right. He deprecated, however, the bringing of constitutional matters into debate without necessity, and contended that it would be much better to pass merely an act repealing the Stamp Duty, without any declaratory act.”‡

The ministers, notwithstanding their success in legislation for America, were neither acceptable to the sovereign nor to the people; and after a dominion of only twelve months, they resigned, and an

* Chatham Correspondence, vol. ii., p. 355.

+ Cooke's "History of Party," vol. iii., p. 74.

Companion to the Newspaper, 1835, p. 366.