Page:Life of William Shelburne (vol 2).djvu/106

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
84
WILLIAM, EARL OF SHELBURNE
CH. III

saw the majorities opposed to them steadily diminish. During the recess fresh disasters both by sea and on land came to confirm the necessity of peace, which now began to be demanded by the powerful voice of the mercantile community. The fleet of Admiral Kempenfelt was unable to face the French squadron owing to his own inferiority of numbers. St. Eustatia, Demerara, and Essequibo were retaken by the French, together with the colonies of St. Christopher, Nevis, and Montserrat. Finally Minorca, which, lost in 1756, had been regained at the Peace of Paris, was obliged to surrender to the Due de Crillon.

Lord North now felt that it was necessary to bend to the storm. He began by getting rid of Lord George Germaine, whose fall was softened by his elevation to the Peerage as Viscount Sackville. This gave rise to two animated debates in the House of Lords, where many Peers strongly protested against the creation to be a Peer of a person "whose disgrace was entered in the Orderly Book of every British regiment."[1] The question thereupon arose whether the House of Lords had the power of refusing to admit a new member. Shelburne on this occasion made a speech which became of great importance, quite apart from the merits of the conduct of Lord George Germaine and of the court-martial which had condemned him in 1760.[2] Already in 1778, when speaking on the Duke of Richmond's motion on the state of the nation, he had declared that he never would submit to the doctrine that the members of the House of Commons were the only representatives and guardians of the people's rights; he asserted that the House of Lords were equally the representatives of the people; they held the balance; and if they perceived the Crown and the House of Commons uniting to oppress the people it was their duty to interpose. He also expressed a doubt whether the House of Lords was really incompetent to alter a Money Bill, and he said that he should like to have the question fairly tried, were it for no other reason

  1. Parliamentary History, xxii. 1003. Speech of Lord Derby.
  2. Ibid. xxii. 1003.