New Colonial Acquisitions in the Pacific

Save for the loss of the American colonies, Great Britain had emerged from the war with little diminution of territory; and that little was to be in a measure made up in new acquisitions elsewhere. It is an interesting coincidence that at the very time of the American war Captain Cook should have been making his three famous voyages into the South Seas and discovering New Zealand and Australia, of which he took possession in the name of King George. Perhaps not since the days of Elizabeth had English explorers been more active than in the years from 1770 to 1815. From Vancouver Island and Puget Sound to Van Dieman's Land, they were laying the foundation for a wide extension of colonial territory. In 1788 the settlement of New South Wales began, and Australia, New Zealand, Van Dieman's Land (Tasmania), the New Hebrides, Fiji, and other islands became centres of new British activity in the Pacific.

But the new possessions were not to be treated as England had treated the American colonies, that is, as merely sources of supply for the mother country. From this time forward the old colonial system, characterized by navigation acts and restrictive measures, ceased to exist in fact, though not in law. This change came about, not because of any lesson taught by the American Revolution, but because the old system had outlived its usefulness. The economist who did more than any one else to show that the old, or “mercantile," system was an injury rather than a benefit to England, was Adam Smith. In the same year (1776) that the Americans by their. Declaration of Independence were protesting against the old British colonial system, Adam Smith, in his Wealth of Nations, was demonstrating the futility of the system by an appeal to facts and figures.

Reforms at Home

Although, in reality, the old colonial policy of Great Britain was responsible for the loss of the American colonies, there were other and more direct causes to which attention has already been called. These were the interference of George III, the second-rate and blundering statesmanship of his ministers, the corruption that pervaded all the offices of government and filled parliament with place-men and partisans. Great Britain from 1761 to 1783 was governed by weak and commonplace men, the representatives of influential families, who managed well enough when affairs went smoothly, but who were hopelessly inefficient in a great crisis like that through which England had just passed.

Some reforms had already been made. In 1771 the practice of secret deliberation in parliament had been given up, and the publication of debates, though not officially allowed, was no longer followed by attempts to arrest and imprison the printer. Thenceforth the public knew what was being said in the House of Commons. Twenty years later (1792), Fox's libel law aided still further the free expression of opinion, by giving to a jury the decision as to whether or not an article was a libel. Toward the close of the American war, public opinion was aroused against the entire system of bribery and corruption, and from 1779 to 1781 public meetings were held to protest against an administration that was bringing humiliation upon England. Popular sentiment found expression in Dunning's famous resolution of April, 1780, “That the influence of the crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished."'

In the same year Edmund Burke, the greatest of England's orators and a loyal friend of the colonies, brought in an elaborate scheme for economic reform, which was designed to do away with useless offices and to prevent waste, jobbery, and peculation in every department. It failed to pass in 1780, but in 1782 was put through in modified form by the Rockingham ministry. By this measure some forty or fifty thousand revenue officers were forbidden to vote in the elections; forty or more offices, such as that of the king's turnspit, for example, were abolished; the pension list was curtailed ; the secret service fund was cut down; and colonial officials were no longer allowed to hold their positions by deputy or for life. In this way £72,000 were saved annually to the government, and the king's patronage was materially diminished.

Corruption of Parties

This reform, important though it was, scarcely touched the real evil of parliamentary and political corruption. The government was in the hands of an oligarchy, which governed in its own interest, with but slight regard for the welfare of the people at large or for the progress of the country.

EDMUND BURKE.

After a painting by George Romney.

The high-water mark of intrigue and ambition was reached in 1783, when the Tories, led by Lord North, allied themselves with the old Whigs to retain power and to curtail the influence of the king. The old Whigs were led by Charles James Fox, one of England's greatest debaters and ablest men, but a statesman passionate and impulsive, and possessed of but little foresight. The coalition ministry brought matters to a crisis. As Lord Rosebery says: “The country was sick of its old lot; the politicians who had fought and embraced and intrigued and jobbed among themselves, with the result of landing Great Britain in an abyss of disaster and discomfiture. There was something rotten in the state, and the rottenness seemed to begin in the politicians."' Against the coalition, George III fought with all the resources at his command; and when, in December, 1783, the House of Lords defeated Fox's bill for the better government of India, he called for the resignation of the ministry. Within twelve hours he had placed the government in the hands of William Pitt, son of the earl of Chatham.

Rise of the Younger Pitt

Pitt, when but twenty years old, had made his maiden speech in defending Burke's reform bill, and now, at the age of twenty-five, was prime minister. At the outset of his ministry he won popular approval by his single-handed contest with the old leaders of parliament—Fox, Burke, and North—and by his refusal to accept pensions or sinecures. The struggle lasted for three months. Pitt was defeated regularly in the House of Commons, but refused to resign, confident that the country was with him. Fox injured his cause and that of the coalition ministry by opposing a dissolution of parliament and by declaring that Pitt ought to resign. But the obstinacy of Fox cost him the support of parliament. Honorable members, who admired Pitt's courage, and placemen, who wanted to be on the winning side, began to desert the old cause. Finally, on March 24, 1784, after three months' patient waiting, Pitt was able to obtain a vote to dissolve. At once new elections were ordered, and these proved overwhelmingly favorable to him. The Whigs fell from power, and Pitt became the centre of authority and the absolute head of the government. These elections stand as a landmark in British history, because they represent a victory of the voting constituencies over corrupt political leaders like Fox.