Frederick North, Lord North

English prime minister (1770-1782)

• Born: April 13, 1732
• Birthplace: London, England
• Died: August 5, 1792
• Place of death: London, England

As prime minister of England, North endeavored to keep the Crown and Parliament working together by adopting policies of moderation and consensus. The American Revolution made it impossible for him to achieve this objective, and in 1782, when the House of Commons turned against the war, North resigned. In so doing, he helped establish the convention that the prime minister and cabinet can continue in office only with the support of a majority of the House of Commons.

Early Life

Frederick North was the eldest son of Francis North, earl of Guilford. His father was associated with Frederick, prince of Wales, heir to the throne and father of King George III. As a child, North was frequently in the company of the future king, whom he would later serve as prime minister.

North received the classical education usual for a young man of his social class and political expectations. He attended Eton College and Trinity College, Oxford, where he was a good student. Throughout his life, he was able to express himself clearly and argue effectively, qualities that such an education fostered. In 1750, after receiving his master of arts degree from Oxford, he began a three-year Grand Tour of the Continent.

Although North served most of his political career in the House of Commons, he was called Lord North, a courtesy title given to the son and heir of a peer. He was twenty-two years of age when he entered the House of Commons in 1754, representing the borough of Banbury, which was controlled by the North family. He continued to represent Banbury as long as he remained in the House of Commons. In appearance, North was rotund and awkward, with large rolling eyes, a full mouth, a quick smile, and a ready wit. He was well liked, even by those who disagreed with him.

North’s close political and personal connections with King George III opened the doors to political office, but his ability and diligence enabled him to move steadily up the ladder of political preferment. In 1759, he was appointed a junior lord of the treasury, an office commonly used to initiate potential leaders into the inner workings of government. When George III took the throne in 1760, the young king and his adviser, Lord Bute, began building a body of political supporters who would be loyal to the king instead of to parliamentary leaders, chief of whom were Thomas Pelham-Holles, duke of Newcastle, and William Pitt. The policies of George III and Bute provoked the resignation of Pitt in 1761 and Newcastle in 1762. Bute became prime minister in 1762, but he resigned a year later because of poor health. The young George III had to fend for himself and learn how to govern in a parliamentary system.

The next seven years were marked by a series of unstable ministries, as the king floundered, ambitious politicians quarreled among themselves, respect for government declined, and difficult issues arose in the North American colonies, Ireland, and India. By 1766, a group of politicians and administrators had emerged who called themselves “The King’s Friends.” They advocated stronger authority in the Crown, and each new ministry brought recruits who remained in office when the ministry fell. It was natural that North would gravitate to support of King George III and the royal authority. In 1767, North accepted the post of first lord of the Admiralty in the Chatham ministry. In 1770, he became first lord of the treasury and nominal prime minister. Lord North had served his political apprenticeship and had emerged as a major figure in British politics.

Life’s Work

Lord North accepted the conventional view of British government in the eighteenth century: a “mixed and balanced” constitution in which the king, House of Lords, and House of Commons worked together to provide strong government while preventing any one element from becoming too powerful. In the 1760’s, it seemed to many that the royal authority had become too weak, both at home and in the colonies. George III actively encouraged this view, and North enlisted willingly in the ranks of those who served the king, both in office and in the House of Commons. His extensive correspondence with George III shows that the king trusted North and was willing to give him extensive responsibility, while North never lost sight of the importance of staying in step with the king on major issues.

At the same time, North was loyal to the powers and practices of the House of Commons, where he was an effective speaker and respected leader. He was an advocate of moderation and economy, seeking to build a consensus that would keep Crown and Parliament working together. In his first four years as first lord of the treasury, North was successful in reducing expenditure and bringing good order into public finance, always a major concern of Parliament. He championed the passage of legislation to establish public control over the British East India Company, which had become corrupted by its swollen territories and revenues in India. He removed some of the taxes that had caused conflict with the American colonists, keeping only the tax on tea. Persons who were politically ambitious found it prudent to fall in line behind the king and his ministers, and the independent members of the House of Commons trusted North’s moderation and common sense. The major opposition leaders, Charles Watson-Wentworth, marquess of Rockingham, and William Pitt the Elder, earl of Chatham, were unable to generate significant support in Parliament or the country. By 1774, North seemed to have brought a decade of political turbulence to a close.

The American Revolution led to the downfall of North and his politics of consensus. The king, the Parliament, and a majority of the nation agreed that the power and prosperity of Great Britain depended on its empire and that the empire required a controlling center and subordinate parts. The Boston Tea Party in 1773 appeared to George III and most of the political nation as a violation of law and order that could not be tolerated. When Great Britain responded by punishing Massachusetts, the colonists called the Continental Congresses and began raising troops, a challenge the king and most of the political nation decided must be met by the use of force. The Whig statesman Edmund Burke, a follower of Lord Rockingham, called for conciliation, but the North ministry, with strong political and popular support, prepared for war. The Declaration of Independence in 1776 settled the matter and the War of the American Revolution began.

North was not a vigorous or effective war minister, but perhaps he faced an impossible task. Despite Great Britain’s overwhelming financial, military, and naval resources, the British redcoats could make little headway against the Continental army under George Washington, backed by militiamen who formed for battle and then disappeared into their towns and farms. Prospects became worse when France entered the war in 1778 and Spain followed in 1779. In November, 1781, news arrived of the surrender of General Charles Cornwallis at Yorktown. The Spanish captured Florida and launched a great siege of Gibraltar, which came within an eyelash of success. Ireland was in arms demanding greater self-government, and the forces of the British East India Company were fighting with their backs to the wall against Indian princes instigated by the French. In 1780, the opposition, led by Rockingham and Burke, attacked North at his most vulnerable spot—the financial administration of the war—and nearly forced his resignation.

The British scored victories in 1782, but by that time it was too late. The nation was tired of the war, although George III was determined to continue the struggle. In March, 1782, the independent members of the House of Commons turned against the North ministry and its policies. Despite the wrath of George III, North resigned and a ministry led by Rockingham, who was pledged to American independence, took office. George III had to accept the loss of his American colonies and a bitter political defeat at home. He never forgave North for abandoning him in his time of troubles.

The remainder of North’s political career was an anticlimax. George III resented the Rockingham ministry, which had been imposed on him by Parliament against his will. From the beginning of his reign, the king had resisted domination by parliamentary politicians, insisting on the right to appoint his own ministers. Shortly after taking office, Rockingham died. George III tried to retrieve his power by appointing Lord Shelburne to lead a ministry, although Shelburne had little support in Parliament and was personally unpopular with most political leaders. At this point, North and his following held the balance of parliamentary power between Shelburne and Charles James Fox, who had assumed leadership of the former followers of Rockingham. Forced to choose between support for the king and Shelburne or the majority of the House of Commons, North chose the latter. Shelburne resigned when he found a majority in the House of Commons against him, and once again George III was compelled to accept a ministry that was not of his own choosing. Fox and North formed a coalition ministry that had the overwhelming support of the House of Commons.

In December, 1783, George III turned the tables. He dismissed the coalition, forming a ministry led by William Pitt the Younger that won a decisive victory in the election of 1784. North never held office again. In 1790, when his father died, North entered the House of Lords as earl of Guilford. He died two years later.

Significance

Lord North was an intelligent, hardworking, good-natured, and practical politician who attempted to apply the conventional ideas of his time when they were challenged by new forces. He served a strong-willed, stubborn king whose policies eventually led to disaster in the American Revolution. North worked with the king and other political leaders to develop a group of court supporters in Parliament, who gave him comfortable majorities until failure in war led to a reaction among the independent members. He was a capable minister of the finances in time of peace, but the administrative institutions of Great Britain could not cope with the enormous expenses of war. When North resigned in 1782, his financial policies lay in shambles. As a war leader, he had no clear strategic concepts, and he left the military aspects of the war to others. North was well liked as a person, even by those who opposed his politics and policies, but he lacked the leadership and imagination to cope effectively with the crisis brought on by the American Revolution.

North left a permanent mark on the British constitution when he decided to resign in 1782, despite the determination of King George III that ministries should not depend upon parliamentary majorities. Like Robert Walpole in 1742, North resigned when he lost the support of the House of Commons. Although the resignations of Walpole and North by no means established the principle that the prime minister should be responsible to the House of Commons, these two resignations helped destroy the principle that the king must be able to appoint ministers of his own choosing without regard to the wishes of Parliament. In the course of time, the modern British system of cabinet government emerged, with the monarch as a nonpolitical head of state and the executive power vested in the prime minister and cabinet supported by a majority in the House of Commons.

Bibliography

Christie, Ian R. The End of North’s Ministry, 1780-1782. London: Macmillan, 1958. A detailed study of the politics predominating at the time of North.

‗‗‗‗‗‗‗. Wars and Revolutions: Britain, 1760-1815. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1982. A historical survey by a leading scholar of the period.

George III. The Correspondence of King George the Third with Lord North from 1768 to 1783. Edited by W. Bodham Donne. 2 vols. London: J. Murray, 1867. Reprint. New York: Da Capo Press, 1971. Although this reprint has some textual deficiencies, it is a convenient primary source for the relationship of the king and his prime minister.

Pares, Richard. King George III and the Politicians. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1953. Still the best general study of the role of the king in politics.

Reitan, E. A. George III: Tyrant or Constitutional Monarch? Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath, 1964. Selections illustrating scholarly controversy concerning the political role of George III.

Thomas, Peter D. G. Lord North. London: Allen Lane, 1976. A brief scholarly biography that emphasizes North’s role in the House of Commons.

Watson, J. Steven. The Reign of George III: 1760-1815. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1960. A well-balanced overview of the period that emphasizes North’s role as the minister of moderation and consensus.

Weintraub, Stanley. Iron Tears: America’s Battle for Freedom, Britain’s Quagmire, 1775-1783. New York: Free Press, 2005. Weintraub argues that colonial America was Britain’s Vietnam—a guerrilla war fought in a faraway location that eventually led to protests and lack of support by British politicians and citizens.

Whiteley, Peter. Lord North: The Prime Minister Who Lost America. London: Hambledon, 1996. Scholarly account of North’s life and political career. Whiteley explains how North and other British officials underestimated the determination of the American rebels and overestimated Britain’s ability to maintain its colony.