These fundamental differences in temperament and outlook would do much to account for the total breach between Pitt and Fox which was now not far away, but for the moment they joined in pouring their verbal firepower into the stricken vessel which the North administration had become. On 27 February, with the county Members voting overwhelmingly against North, the government was defeated by nineteen votes (234 to 215) in a packed House on a motion which called for the end of the war in America. Desperate consideration was given to recruiting opposition figures to the government, including an idea put forward by Dundas of bringing in Lowther, Rutland and Pitt and their friends with offers of honours and junior ministerial posts. It is unlikely that such attempts would have succeeded even had they been made, and in any case the opposition benches were now massing to deliver the final blow. On 8 March a motion of no confidence in the government was defeated by only ten votes, with Pitt acting as a teller for the opposition.* In excitement he wrote to his mother the following day: ‘I came to town yesterday in time for a very good debate; and a division which, though not victorious, is as encouraging as possible – 216 against 226, on a question leading directly to removal, is a force that can hardly fail.’
Pitt was right. Both sides strove to bring their maximum numbers to bear in the next debate on 15 March. This followed weeks of ‘the most violent exertions on both sides’.16 Now ‘every artifice of party was used by the Opposition to encourage their friends and to terrify or hold out to popular odium the adherents of Administration. Lists were published and disseminated through the kingdom, containing the names of the members who voted on each question … it produced … a powerful effect on weak or timid individuals.’17 This time the government clung on by only nine votes (236 to 227). No eighteenth-century government could remain in office if its majority on a question of confidence was in single figures and declining. With a further debate set for 20 March, North prepared to resign. He advised the King to send for Rockingham and Shelburne, to which the King replied: ‘My sentiments of honour will not permit me to send for any of the Leaders of Opposition and personally treat with them.’18
Despite the King’s protestations, North knew his support was sliding further and that he had no option. On the afternoon of 20 March he arrived at the House of Commons and attempted to speak, but was drowned out by a furious opposition who thought he was trying to prevent the debate from taking place, and insisted that the opposition spokesman Lord Surrey should have the floor. After extensive points of order, in which Pitt once again took part, North was eventually given the floor, assuring the House that ‘those persons who had for some time conducted the public affairs, were no longer His Majesty’s Ministers. They were no longer to be considered as men holding the reins of government and transacting measures of state, but merely remaining to do their official duty, till other Ministers were appointed to take their places.’19
As ever, North retained his sense of humour. Members had anticipated a long sitting, and huddled around the entrance of the House of Commons waiting for their carriages to be brought as the snow fell around them. Lord North had his carriage waiting. ‘Good night, gentlemen,’ he said to them cheerily, ‘you see what it is to be in the secret.’ At last he had been able to give up the burden he had wanted to shed for so long. For George III, however, the worst of his nightmares had come true.
Defeat at the hands of the American colonists was to have a massive impact on the politics, society and trade of Great Britain. The prime focus of Britain’s empire would now move to the Caribbean, and India would play an ever larger role in its affairs. Relations with the new United States of America would centre on trade, despite the contribution of trading disagreements to the outbreak of war in the first place, with a vast expansion of commerce between Britain and its former colonies which would be crucial to British success in almost all subsequent major wars. In the immediate aftermath of the war, a wounded Britain would pursue a relatively cautious and risk-averse foreign policy. And in those same short years, the seeds of British hostility to slavery, planted by promises of freedom made to slaves during the fighting in America, would grow rapidly into British leadership of the efforts to abolish the slave trade.
In domestic politics, dissatisfaction with the pursuit and handling of the war would bring to a high pitch the demand for constitutional change by means of parliamentary reform, although it would not be many years before a conservative reaction set in. Pitt would make the campaign for such reform his personal crusade for some three years after the North government fell. Equally important, the war had revealed that the British state was ill-equipped to deal with the growing military, political and financial complexity of major conflict. A Cabinet system which relied on the separate relationships of individual Ministers with the King, and had no member who would actually admit to the title of Prime Minister and freely interfere with other departments, was no way to produce a consistent or effective strategy in times of crisis. A figure such as Chatham could dominate his colleagues and give aggressive direction to warmaking at the height of the Seven Years’ War, but a more diffident figure such as Lord North provided no central point of coordination or control.
Beneath Cabinet level, the finance and administration of government departments were certainly inefficient and corrupt, moving even Lord North himself in 1780 to set up a statutory commission to examine the public accounts. The stage was set for far-reaching reform of the practices of British government by any future set of Ministers who had the confidence and the power systematically to set about it.
The fall of Lord North was not to produce such a government. It was, of course, abundantly clear that the King would now have to accept into ministerial posts the politicians who had hitherto made up the opposition and who for years had denounced the war, the North administration, and often by implication the King himself. George III’s repugnance at promoting such people was extreme, and he had rejected all previous attempts to recruit the Rockingham Whigs to office because of the demands they presented. Unsurprisingly, these demands had included recognition of American independence, the appointment of large numbers of opposition politicians to positions in the government and the Royal Household, and serious economical reform. The King had no regard for Rockingham, along with the deepest possible dislike of Fox, and felt utterly humiliated by the prospect of having to treat with them. He churlishly accused Lord North of deserting him, privately threatened to abdicate, and drew up a message to Parliament which referred to his leaving the country ‘for ever’.20
Evidently reflecting that there were worse things than being King of England even without its American colonies, George in the end allowed the intransigent side of his character to be tempered by the manipulative abilities he also possessed. While the Rockingham Whigs exulted in Westminster about the spoils of office which would now be coming their way, and Fox openly and regularly referred to the King as ‘Satan’,21 George resolved to make their arrival in government as uncomfortable as possible. First, he refused to have any direct negotiations with the Rockinghams, and instead conducted negotiations through the smaller of the opposition groupings led by Shelburne. Secondly, he denied the Rockinghams any general ability to create new peerages and honours, while showering honours upon the Shelburnites: John Dunning, who conducted the initial negotiations, became Lord Ashburton with a pension of £4,000 a year for life; Colonel Barré became Treasurer of the Navy with a life pension of £3,200 a year – to give only the two most obvious examples. As a result ‘inextinguishable jealousies arose, and mutual distrust manifested itself on every occasion’.22 Thirdly, he insisted on retaining the Lord Chancellor, Lord Thurlow, from the previous administration when the new Cabinet was formed. Dundas also continued in office as Lord Advocate.
It seems that initially the King even asked Shelburne rather than Rockingham to head the new government, but with Rockingham having far greater numbers in the Commons, Shelburne declined to do so. The Cabinet that was thus formed included Rockingham as First Lord of the Treasury, Shelburne and Charles James Fox as Secretaries of State (Fox responsible for foreign affairs and Shelburne for home and colonial affairs), Pitt’s friend Lord Camden as President of the Council, and Lord John Cavendish as Chancellor of the Exchequer. While the King had to accept a complete reversal of policy, in that all these Ministers sought peace with America, he had succeeded in creating a divided