Protestant Exiles from France/Volume 2 - Book Third - Chapter 25 - Isaac Barré
Right Hon. Isaac Barré, born in 1726 (see chap, xxii.), and educated at Trinity College, Dublin, was sent to London, to become a lawyer; but he entered the army. In 1746 he became Ensign, and in 1755 Lieutenant in the 32nd regiment; then came the British invasion of the French territory in America. Barré’s capacity became known to the “immortal Wolfe.” With regard to him, Wolte wrote to Colonel Rickson in the following winter: “By accident I heard of his worth and good sense . . . . I am already repaid for the little I did, by drawing out of obscurity this worthy gentleman. I never knew his face till very lately, nor ever spoke ten words to him before I ventured to propose him as a Major of brigade . . . . We embark in three or four days (Feb. 1758). Barré and I have the great apartment of a three-decked ship to revel in.” Barré with the warmest gratitude always spoke of Wolfe as “my only protector and friend,” “my zealous and sole advocate;” “for want of friends I had lingered a subaltern officer eleven years, when Mr. Wolfe’s opinions of me rescued me from obscurity.” In 1759 Wolfe had a Major-General’s command in Canada, and in May of that year Barré became Adjutant-General with the rank of Major. On the 13th September Quebec was taken, Wolfe was killed, and Barré received a severe wound which destroyed one of his eyes. Barré remained in America till the surrender of Montreal, when he was sent home with the despatches, and arrived in London 5th Oct. 1760. On 29th January 1761 he was promoted to the rank of Lieut.-Colonel, and became Adjutant-General of the British Army and Governor of Stirling Castle. His military prospects were soon overclouded through his entering the House of Commons, “brought into parliament (he himself said) with reluctance on my own part, by the hand of friendship.” The friend was the Earl of Shelburne.
Barré was a proprietor of stock in the East India Company, and so was Lord Shelburne. It was at the meeting of the company that their acquaintance began. Barré’s talents for speech-making and for finance found their first opportunity for exercise, and his Lordship persuaded him to enter the House of Commons. He accordingly became M.P. for the borough of Chipping Wycombe in 1761.
It was Barré’s vote on 15th November 1763 that gave offence. The proceedings against Wilkes as a libeller raised the question of the legality of his arrest by virtue of a “general warrant,” i.e., a warrant not naming him, but describing the species of offenders under which he, and others (also unnamed), might be classed. Barré himself informs us, “When the matter of general warrants was discussed in the House, my conscience directed me to oppose the measure, which I modestly did by a silent vote.” The very next day he was dismissed from his military employments, and ultimately, by a junior Lieutenant-Colonel being promoted over his head, he received a hint to leave the army, and retired without even his half-pay. (It appears from the Grenville Papers that the proceedings were not quite so summary. On 27th November the king was hesitating very much about removing Colonel Barré, who did not get his final dismissal till 7th December — the step being taken entirely in deference to the advice of Rt. Hon. George Grenville, who urged that it would be an additional blow to Lord Shelburne.) Barré’s subsequent career as an opposition member was honourable, serviceable, and magnificent.
In 1765, when the American Stamp Act was passed, he (as was afterwards admitted) alone foresaw its direful consequences. Walpole writes to the Earl of Hertford from Arlington Street, 12th February 1765, “There has been nothing of, note in Parliament, but one slight day on the American Taxes, which Charles Townshend supporting received a pretty heavy thump from Barré, who is the present Pitt, and the dread of all the vociferous Norths and Rigbies, on whose lungs depended so much of Mr. Grenville’s power.” One eloquent passage in Colonel Barré’s speech has never been forgotten in Britain or America, “Children planted by your care? No! your oppression planted them in America; they fled from your tyranny into a then uncultivated land, where they were exposed to almost all hardships to which human nature is liable, and yet, actuated by principles of true English liberty, they met all these hardships with pleasure, compared to those they had suffered in their own country from the hands of those who should have been their friends. They nourished by your indulgence? They grew by your neglect of them; as soon as you began to care about them, that care was exercised in sending persons to rule over them, who were perhaps the deputies of some deputy, sent to spy out their liberty, to misrepresent their actions, and to prey upon them. They protected by your arms? They have nobly taken up arms in your defence, &c, &c.”
Barré’s career of opposition was interrupted by his receiving office, as one of Lord Shelburne’s train, under the Earl of Chatham. This is thought by some writers to be a blot on his career, Barré in his first speech in Parliament having attacked Pitt, and having used even such violent phraseology as “There he would stand, turning up his eyes to heaven that witnessed his perjuries, and laying his hand in a solemn manner upon the table — that sacrilegious hand that had been employed in tearing out the bowels of his mother country.” The Chatham Correspondence, however, acquits Barré, showing that there had been honourable negotiations, founded upon “conciliatory expressions to America.” Barré was now made a Privy Councillor and joint Vice-Treasurer of Ireland. The political arrangements, however, were of short continuance, and he returned to opposition. To this period he once jocularly alluded, “In Ireland, when I was Vice-Treasurer with Lord Clare, we always paid the money first and then examined if we owed it.” He always reckoned himself to be a born Irishman, and once raised a laugh against himself as one of that nation, by saying of the city of Boston, in America, “She is your eldest son.” In 1769 (April 12) he made a masterly speech in favour of the perpetuity of the militia; and the resolution was carried by a majority of 84 to 79. In 1773 he obtained an increase to the pay of Captains of the Navy, on the ground that they have greatly promoted the influence of this country by receiving on board and entertaining foreign princes of the blood and other great personages. In 1774 he opposed the establishment of the Roman Catholic religion in any part of America.
Barré is known by his powerful opposition to the American War; but it was remarked upon as surprising, that he hesitated at first. But human nature will betray an occasional weakness; and our East India proprietor had no doubt been shocked by the news that three cargoes of tea had been thrown into the sea at Boston, so that in 1774 he supported the Bill for closing that port.
A pamphlet was published in London in 1777, entitled “Characters, containing an impartial review of the public conduct and abilities of the most eminent Personages in the Parliament of Great Britain, considered as statesmen, senators, and public speakers.” A section is devoted to Colonel Barré, and is highly laudatory — but mentions this inconsistency in his public conduct, and his explanation of it, thus:—
“The Resolutions in the Committee of the whole House, in the beginning of the spring session 1774, having (we fear) fatally spawned that celebrated law, called The Boston Port Bill, as the firstborn ot those measures which have produced the present civil war in America, it met with the Colonel’s support, contrary to every anterior and subsequent opinion of his in Parliament. This was matter of surprise at the time; and there were some who did not hesitate to impute so sudden and unexpected an alteration of sentiment to motives which have since governed several others who then stood high in the estimation of the public, but who have since flatly belied all their former professions, or have at least learned to be persuaded that they were mistaken or misled. The observation here made was not barely confined to the suspicions or murmurs of people without doors; it has frequently been objected to him by several of the members of Administration in debate, when he has arraigned in the most unqualified terms the measures of Government and charged their authors with ignorance, temerity, and injustice. We have heard them more than once retaliate on him in nearly the following words:— ‘The Boston Port Bill (no matter whether a wise, an expedient, or an equitable measure) drew the nation into this war. Why did you support it so warmly, with all those powers of oratory and ratiocination which you so eminently possess? Everything which has since followed grew out of that measure. If it was a wise measure, why not continue to support it? if a bad one, why for a minute lend it your countenance?’
“The Colonel’s answer can only be properly decided upon by the monitor residing within his own breast. He has repeatedly said on those occasions, ‘that the minister gave him and his friends, both in and out of Parliament, the most lull and specific assurances that if the bill were permitted to pass both Houses with an appearance of firmness and unanimity, the East India Company would receive reparation for the tea which had been destroyed the preceding autumn; that this would produce measures of lenity and conciliation at this side of the water; that Government meant to relax on certain material points; and that every dispute subsisting between Great Britain and her Colonies would terminate in the most amicable manner, equally for the advantage and honour of both countries. But (continued the Colonel) when this point was gained, administration feeling themselves stronger than they expected, they proceeded to hostilities against the constitutional rights of the Colonies, by following the Boston Port Bill with The Massachusset’s Bay Charter Bill, and that for the removal of offenders in America for trial to another Colony or home to Great Britain.’”
In 1778 he began his projects for the publication and auditing of the public accounts of receipt and expenditure. In this year Lord Chatham died, and on May 11th Barré moved an address to the king for a funeral at the public charge, which was agreed to, with an addition, proposed by Mr. Dunning, for a monument in Westminster Abbey. On February 22nd, 1779, he supported a motion for the enlistment of soldiers for a limited term of service, and though the proposal was thrown out by a majority of 122 to 68, yet the wisdom of the principle was ably set forth in his speech. “That soldiers should be enlisted for life (he said) was, in his opinion, a most preposterous idea, and had ever been repugnant to his feelings. Judge Blackstone had laid it down that it would be agreeable to the constitution of this free country and conducive to the military service that soldiers should be enlisted to serve for a limited time. That soldiers should be kept in slavery for life — this was the hardship that caused so much desertion.” In 1780 he proposed that there should be a small committee to act as Commissioners of Accounts, to reform the system of collection and disbursement of public money, and to ascertain the balances in the hands of the various departments. Lord North, on the part of the Government, adopted the basis of the suggestion, but proposed a different construction of the Commission, which was agreed to next session. In 1782 Lord Shelburne having become Foreign Secretary, Barré became Treasurer of the Navy; and soon after he was made Paymaster of the Forces, his noble patron having become Premier.
Mr. Britton says:—
“The chief feature of Lord Shelburne’s short administration of 1782 was the conclusion of peace with America, and the recognition of the independence of that country — a measure which his Lordship strongly urged upon the king, whose feelings were pertinaciously opposed to it. The Earl powerfully exerted himself in favour of his zealous friends and supporters, Dunning and Barré.[1] Besides securing the honour of the Garter for himself, he obtained a peerage for Dunning as Baron Ashburton, with a place as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and a seat in the cabinet. Barré was rewarded by a pension of £3200 a year, to commence on his retirement from the ministry.”
If the Right Hon. Isaac Barré had not been arbitrarily stripped of his military status and its emoluments by political oppression, he would in 1782 have been an old Lieutenant-General; he would have had the Colonelcy of a regiment as the Adjutant-General customarily had, and the military employments, which he had forfeited by no military offence. The government accordingly compensated him by a parliamentary vote, that on his removal from, or relinquishment of, his office under government, he should receive a pension of £3200. To prevent criticisms, to which pensions are liable, Mr. Pitt in 1784 conferred on him the sinecure post of Clerk of the Pells, with an income of £3000 a year.
Once in a parliamentary speech he alluded to his wound. “Though I lost one eye in America,” he said, “I have a military eye left which does not deceive me.” Towards the close of his parliamentary life the sight of his remaining serviceable eye failed him, and he became totally blind. In 1785 he was in this condition, and spoke powerfully on the National Defences. Observing some favour in head-quarters to a “paltry, narrow, circumscribed plan” of fortifying Portsmouth and Plymouth, he obtained the appointment of a board of naval and land officers to report on the whole question. On 27th February 1786 the board having been so constructed as to ensure the recommendation of the Duke of Richmond’s proposal, the fortification of the two dockyards was pressed. Barré spoke powerfully against it, but could not wait for the division; Burke was absent from illness; however, the Speaker’s casting-vote negatived the plan.
Owing to Barré’s powerful diction, fierce argumentation, and popular sympathies, the idea came into notice that he had some connection with the authorship of the Letters of Junius. Mr. Britton published an interesting Essay, entitled, “Junius Elucidated,” containing pleas for the opinion that Junius was a triumvirate, namely, Shelburne, Dunning, and Barré, the latter being the composer and William Greatrakes the amanuensis. The strongest part of the attempted demonstration, as to Barré, is the belief that he wrote Wolfe’s Last Despatch; also that he probably was the author of “A Letter to a Brigadier-General” concerning the military affairs of that epoch, which was published anonymously, and which is written in the same style as Junius. Other portions of the proof are not perfectly conclusive. As to powers of invective there is no want of probable evidence. Instance the following sentences from Barré’s attack on the Government in 1770:— “Who then can, without sorrow, behold his sovereign going to war with only half of his people at his back ? Who can forbear to wish that there may be reserved in heaven some chosen bolt, red with uncommon fire, to blast the wretches who could reduce him to such an unfortunate situation?” He revelled in sarcastic phrases, such as, “a pension two or three generations deep” — “a species of canine and carnivorous animals called Contractors.” He never avowed himself an author; he said in 1780, “The talent of writing ably is undoubtedly a great additional qualification to an officer; some officers possess it in an eminent degree, and some do not; the latter perhaps make it up to their country by their superior personal bravery, by their superior knowledge of the art of war and their eminence as men of distinguished military character. In France, where military character is better understood than in any country, the talent of writing ably is so far from being thought peculiarly recommendatory in officers, that generals so qualified are spoken of with contempt and in the coarsest terms the French language will admit of.” His speeches occasionally allude to France. In 1773 he said, “In France it is a custom to judge upon one-sixth, one-seventh, or one-eighth of a proof; the unfortunate Calas of Toulouse was condemned upon eight hearsays, which, in France, amounted to a proof. I hope never to see Toulouse arguments admitted as proofs here” [“you mean too loose arguments,” some honourable member cried out].
“Colonel Barré” (as he was commonly called) was a very amiable relation and a cheerful and companionable friend. He was celebrated in Parliament for his most interesting and inexhaustible fund of anecdote. When he was blind he used to be seen at parties, &c, leaning on the arm of his youthful and very beautiful cousin, Arabella Margaretta Phipps, afterwards Mrs Rose of Glastullich. The Phipps family and their connections kept up “Barré” as a Christian name. His political ally, Dunning, became Lord Ashburton; and his heir, the second Lord, was Barré Dunning, in whose memory Barré is a baptismal name in the family of Cuninghame of Lainshaw. Colonel Barré was very intimate with the Montgomery family of Magbie Hill, Peebles; and to one of them, Anne, Marchioness Townshend, he is reputed to have left £12,000. Barbara Montgomery was married to the Right Hon. John Beresford (brother of the first Marquis of Waterford), and her descendants also preserve the name “Barré.” Mr. Roberts, Deputy-Clerk of the Pells, had a son, Barré Charles Roberts, a young literateur, who died at the age of twenty-one, and whose posthumous volume was much admired.
The Right Hon. Isaac Barré lived and died a bachelor; his death took place in his seventy-sixth year, 20th July 1802, at his house in Stanhope Street, Mayfair, London. He had retired from Parliament in 1790. (The authorities for this Memoir are Britton’s Junius Elucidated, Wright’s Life of Wolfe, The Chatham Correspondence, and the Parliamentary History.)
- ↑ It was in company with Barré that Dunning was thrown from his horse at a military review at Berlin, Frederic the Great having given him not only an invitation but also the use of a spirited charger, in the belief that his title of Solicitor-General was a military one.