"Proper Trust of Liberty": economical reform, the English constitution and the protections of accounting during the American War of Independence, The

Accounting History,  Feb 2008  by Funnell, Warwick

• E-mail
• Print
• Link

Outside the government of Lord North,9 it was not the imminent loss of the colonies or the cost of the war of itself that necessarily aroused the greatest opposition to the government but the opportunities that the extraordinary financial cost imposed on the nation had created for the Crown to increase its influence in parliament through the exercise of patronage (see Burke in Parliamentary History, VoLXXI, 23 February 1780, col. Ul and Parliamentary History, VoLXX, 30 June 1779, col. 823; Prior, 1839, p.203; Parliamentary History, VoLXX, 14 December 1778, col. 76). Edmund Burke on the 11 February 1780 warned that:

during the present expensive and unfortunate war, the trade, manufactures, and land-rents of this kingdom have been greatly diminished; the Public Burdens grievously augmented by the annual imposition of new and additional taxes; the National Debt enormously increased; and the undue influence of the Crown extended to an alarming degree ... (cited in Maccoby, 1955, p.313, emphasis added; for similar concerns see also Lord Shelburne in Parliamentary History, Vol.XX, 15 December 1779, col. 1291.)

The War of Independence permitted the Crown a level of influence in parhament that was widely criticized, with rising apprehension, as unconstitutional, illegal and possibly "fatal". In particular, the presence in parhament of a large number of very wealthy and powerful military contractors who owed their highly profitable contracts to the Crown was both evidence of the extent of the Crown's influence and of the possibilities for even greater degradation of parliament's authority. Contracting abuses had become so flagrant that "at no other period in our annals... did the abuses of the contract system flourish in such rank extravagance. At no other period were they so detrimental to the public service" (Observations made in the House of Commons, as cited in Porritt, 1903/1963, p.218).

Blackstone referred to the Crown's influence during the War of Independence as being "most amazingly extensive", in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords (cited in Foord, 1947, p.484) while Dunning's famous resolution in the Commons on 6 April 1780, that "the influence of the Crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished", drew popular attention to the extent to which patronage, especially sinecures, had reached in parliament during the duress of war (Parliamentary History, VoLXXI, 6 April 1780, cols 340-88; Christie, 1962, pp.97-8; Norris, 1963, p.129; Cannon, 1973, p.78).

Amidst the fears of financial ruin, invasion of England by France and the loss of the American colonies, unease expressed both within and outside parliament about the influence of the Crown recognized that there was widespread concern, most prominently displayed in the petition movement (see later), that Lord North as prime minister was allowing himself to be used by George III (1760-1820) to place in jeopardy the liberties of the English at home. Burke (1935, p.ix) and many others on the opposition benches rejected the Crown's proposition that the American colonies were the king's personal property to do with them as he pleased and, therefore, to take whatever actions he thought necessary. Rather, Burke, among many, could see in the government's ruthless determination to use whatever "barbaric" means were required to ensure that the colonies would not be lost and its refusal to negotiate with the Americans10 who were not infrequently warmly regarded by members of parliament and the nation at large as fellow Englishmen, as opportunities to threaten their own liberties in England (Burke, Speech on Conciliation with the Colonies, 22 March 1775, in Burke, 1942, p.91, see also p.96; Morley, 1879/1909, p.87; Baker, 1971, p.248; Thomas, 1976, p.2). Lord Rockingham,11 the leader of the Whig opposition, warned parhament of the "despotism [which]... seemed to pervade all the acts of the present reign ...". The government, he concluded, was using the war in America as: