the attempt of France to mediate. While the matter was yet unsettled Weymouth suddenly resigned (16 Dec.) His action was popularly attributed to the want of support he received, but was more probably ex- plained by his fear of having to conduct a war (Ann. Reg. 1770, pp. 41-5), and was possibly due to jealousy of Hillsborough, the newly created colonial secretary (George III to Weymouth, 30 Sept. 1770). His management of the whole negotiation was mysterious. Thomas Walpole, the secretary of the embassy at Paris, complained of the vague instructions he received, and Choiseul, the French minister, said of the two secretaries of state, 'Milord Weymouth ne parle point et milord Rochfort parle trop.' Rochford also told North that Weymouth 'did not wish to make war or know how to make peace.' Horace Walpole accuses Weymouth of a wish to overthrow North and 'share or scramble for his power.'
In the debate in the House of Lords on 13 Feb. 1771 which followed Spain's recognition of the English pretensions to the Falkland Islands, though Chatham and Shelburne spoke, 'all expectation hung on Weymouth' (Walpole). He 'expressed himself with much obscurity and mystery,' and maintained that there was no material difference (as the opposition contended) between the terms he had claimed and those now agreed to. He did not go into opposition, and as early as June 1771 his name was men- tioned for the office of lord privy seal should Grafton decline it (George III to Lord North, 9 June).
In August 1772, when dissensions arose in the cabinet over the question of the Ohio grants, North, wishing to strengthen himself, offered Weymouth one of the secretaryships of state, though Rigby had previously told him he would not accept it. Weymouth haughtily rejected the offer (Walpole, Last Journals). Though not regularly in opposition, he at this period took an independent line. On 8 March 1774 he spoke against Grenville's election committee bill. Though he opposed Chatham's resolution of 20 Jan. 1775 for the recall of the troops from America, it was with so many compliments to the mover that 'he seemed to think the latter would still be minister once more' (Walpole). When Chatham's conciliation bill was presented (1 Feb.) Weymouth was absent, according to Walpole, out of compliment to him and through jealousy of North. He was partially conciliated in the following month by his appointment as groom of the stole (29 March), but 'still looked to better himself by a change.'
On Rochford's retirement Weymouth was reappointed secretary of state for the southern department (10 Nov. 1775), and during the next four years he generally conducted the government business in the House of Lords. During the discussion of Richmond's motion (5 March 1776) to countermand the march of German troops and for the suspension of hostilities in America, Weymouth twitted Grafton and Camden with responsibility for the present state of affairs caused by their own action when his colleagues (Parl. Hist. xviii. 1226-8, 1285-6; cf. Walpole, Last Journals). On 30 May 1777 he opposed Chatham's motion for putting a stop to hostilities in America as inadequate and ill-timed, in view of the commission recently appointed to negotiate with the colonists. In reply to a second speech by Chatham, he said that his remarks were founded on the erroneous supposition that Great Britain was the aggressor in the quarrel; he declared that France had never been more friendly (Parl. Hist. xix. 342-4). Walpole in his account of the same debate asserts that Weymouth 'remarkably denied that the court held any such doctrine' as the unconditional submission of the colonies, in flat contradiction to the language of his colleague in the other house, Lord George Germain [see Germain, George Sackville, first Viscount Sackville]. The same authority represents him a few months later as 'for peace at any rate,' though of opinion that 'ministers must go on to save their heads.' On 16 Feb. 1778 he renewed former assurances of the pacific professions of France, 'but would not hold himself answerable to be called upon should a war happen to break out shortly' (ib. p. 737). On 5 March he assured the lords 'in the plainest and most precise manner 'that he knew of no treaty having been signed or entered into between France and the deputies of the American congress (ib. pp. 835-6). But on the 17th he had to announce such a treaty, and to move a resolution assuring the king of support (ib. pp. 914 et seq.; cf. Walpole, Last Journals). On 7 April, when Richmond opened the debate which was remarkable for the dying effort of Chatham, Weymouth made a spirited speech in which he declared the motion (for the withdrawal of troops from America and the dismissal of ministers) as an infringement of the prerogative. When the debate was resumed after the adjournment caused by Chatham's illness, neither Weymouth nor any other minister made any reply (Parl. Hist. xix. 1012-60). On 19 March Fox, speaking in the other house, said he was sorry to include his own friend Weymouth in his condemna-
